Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is central to the quality, credibility, and integrity of Sustainable Business Research (SBR). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical standards, and practical expectations for reviewers participating in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

  • Maintaining academic quality and integrity

  • Improving the clarity, rigour, and relevance of submitted manuscripts

  • Supporting fair, constructive, and timely editorial decisions

Reviews should aim to help authors strengthen their work, whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted.

2. Review Model

SBR 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 confidential documents.

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise

  • They can complete the review within the requested timeframe (usually 2–3 weeks)

  • There is no conflict of interest

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Recent collaboration with the author(s)

  • Institutional affiliation with the author(s)

  • Financial, personal, or professional relationships that may influence judgment

If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential

  • Not share, discuss, or use the content for personal research

  • Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or third-party platforms

All review materials must be deleted after the review process is complete.

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide honest, objective, and unbiased evaluations

  • Avoid discriminatory or personal remarks

  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data issues, or unethical research practices

  • Inform the editor of any suspected misconduct

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not:

  • Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms

  • Use AI to generate review reports

Reviewers may:

  • Use personal reference management tools for citation checking

  • Rely on their own expertise and scholarly judgment

The review must remain a human intellectual contribution.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

7.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Is the topic relevant to sustainable business research?

  • Does the manuscript fit the journal’s aims and scope?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

  • Does the study offer new insights or knowledge?

  • Is the contribution clearly articulated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

  • Is the literature review adequate and up to date?

  • Is the theoretical framework sound?

7.4 Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate?

  • Are data sources and methods clearly explained?

  • Are analyses rigorous and replicable?

7.5 Results and Discussion

  • Are results clearly presented and logically interpreted?

  • Does the discussion link findings to theory and practice?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

  • Are conclusions supported by the findings?

  • Are policy or managerial implications meaningful?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well structured and clearly written?

  • Are tables and figures appropriate and clear?

8. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their report as follows:

A. Summary

A brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution.

B. Major Comments

Substantive issues related to:

  • Theory or framing

  • Methodology

  • Analysis

  • Contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions related to:

  • Clarity

  • Organisation

  • Language

  • Formatting

Comments should be specific and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers are asked to select one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

Recommendations should be consistent with the written comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews should be:

  • Constructive and respectful

  • Focused on the work, not the author

  • Clear and balanced

Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should provide feedback that helps authors improve their research.

11. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe

  • Inform the editor promptly if delays are unavoidable

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining journal quality and author satisfaction.

12. Post-Review Conduct

After submitting a review:

  • Reviewers should not contact authors directly

  • Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript publicly

  • Confidentiality must be maintained indefinitely

13. Recognition of Reviewers

SBR recognises the contribution of reviewers by:

  • Annual acknowledgement lists (with consent)

  • Reviewer certificates upon request

  • Consideration for editorial roles based on performance

14. Compliance with Standards

Reviewers for SBR are expected to comply with:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • Journal-specific ethics and policies

Failure to comply may result in removal from the reviewer pool.