Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the Review of Supply Chain Management (RSCM). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and procedural standards for reviewers engaged in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

  • Maintaining high academic standards in supply chain, logistics, and operations research
  • Improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of submitted manuscripts
  • Supporting fair, objective, and timely editorial decisions
  • Providing constructive feedback to strengthen theoretical and practical contributions

The purpose of review is to improve the manuscript, regardless of final acceptance.

2. Review Model

RSCM operates a double-blind peer review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept only if:

  • The manuscript falls within their expertise (e.g., logistics, procurement, supply chain analytics, operations management)
  • They can complete the review within the required timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
  • No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Recent collaboration with the author(s)
  • Institutional affiliation with the author(s)
  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships that may bias judgment

If any conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents
  • Not share or discuss manuscript content with others
  • Not use manuscript content for personal or academic purposes
  • Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms
  • Delete all manuscript files after completing the review

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide fair, objective, and constructive evaluations
  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, or unprofessional remarks
  • Identify potential ethical issues such as plagiarism or data manipulation
  • Report any suspected misconduct to the editor

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must NOT:

  • Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external systems
  • Use AI-generated text to write review reports

Reviewers MAY:

  • Rely on their own academic expertise and judgment
  • Use citation tools for reference verification without sharing manuscript content

All review work must remain fully human-generated.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Is the manuscript relevant to supply chain management, logistics, or operations?
  • Does it align with the scope of RSCM?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

  • Does the study offer new theoretical, methodological, or practical insights?
  • Are implications for supply chain efficiency, resilience, or sustainability clear?

7.3 Literature and Theory

  • Is the literature review current and comprehensive?
  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate and well-developed?

7.4 Methodology

  • Is the research design suitable and clearly explained?
  • Are data collection and analytical methods robust and transparent?
  • Is the study reproducible and methodologically sound?

7.5 Results and Discussion

  • Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
  • Do results contribute to supply chain theory and practice?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
  • Are managerial and operational implications meaningful and actionable?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?
  • Are tables, figures, and illustrations relevant and clear?

8. Structure of the Review Report

A. Summary

Brief overview of the manuscript and its key contribution

B. Major Comments

Substantive issues related to theory, methodology, analysis, or contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions on clarity, language, formatting, or presentation

All comments should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Recommendations must align with the written review comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews should be:

  • Constructive and respectful
  • Objective and evidence-based
  • Focused on improving the manuscript
  • Supportive even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Complete reviews within 2–3 weeks
  • Inform editors promptly in case of delays

Timely review ensures efficient publication processing.

12. Post-Review Conduct

After submitting a review, reviewers must:

  • Not contact authors directly
  • Not disclose manuscript content publicly
  • Maintain confidentiality indefinitely

13. Recognition of Reviewers

RSCM acknowledges reviewers through:

  • Annual acknowledgment lists (with consent)
  • Reviewer certificates upon request
  • Consideration for editorial or guest editor roles based on performance

14. Compliance with Standards

Reviewers must comply with:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
  • RSCM editorial policies on ethics, confidentiality, and research integrity

Non-compliance may result in removal from the reviewer database.