This guide is intended for reviewers, editors, and authors to understand the expectations and procedures for each type of review: Editorial Review, Anonymous Peer Review (Single-Blind & Double-Blind), Post-Publication Peer Review, and Open Peer Review.

1. Editorial Review

Overview

• In the Editorial Review process, manuscripts are reviewed internally by the journal’s editorial team without external reviewers.
• This method is typically used for opinion pieces, commentaries, or brief reports where specialized technical peer review is not required.

Training for Editors

• Screening for Fit: Ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and content guidelines.
  • Ask: Does the manuscript contribute to current business discussions? Is it of interest to the journal’s readership?
• Clarity and Structure: Evaluate whether the paper is well-organized and clear.
  • Are the arguments or opinions logically presented? Does the manuscript have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion?
• Writing Quality: Review for grammar, punctuation, and overall readability.
  • Is the writing free of errors? Is it concise and professional?
• Feedback to Authors: Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the manuscript.
  • Focus on clarity, logical flow, and argument strength.

Steps for Review

1. Initial Screening (2-3 days after submission): Check for plagiarism and fit with the journal’s scope.
2. Detailed Review (within 7 days): Focus on structure, argumentation, and language.
3. Decision (within 10 days): Decide to accept, reject, or request minor revisions.

Outcome

• The editorial team provides feedback to the author on potential improvements or acceptance/rejection with explanations.

2. Anonymous Peer Review

A. Single-Blind Peer Review

Overview

• In Single-Blind Peer Review, the reviewer knows the identity of the author, but the author does not know who the reviewer is. This method is used for case studies, review articles, and some original research.

Training for Reviewers

• Understanding the Subject Matter: Reviewers must have expertise in the field to properly evaluate the manuscript’s technical content.
  • Check that the research methods are sound, data is accurately analyzed, and conclusions are supported by evidence.
• Objective Critique: Even though the reviewer knows the author’s identity, reviews must remain objective and focused on the manuscript’s content.
  • Avoid biases based on the author’s reputation or institution.
• Providing Feedback: Provide detailed and constructive feedback on methodology, results, and conclusions.
  • What are the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses? How can the work be improved?
• Maintaining Confidentiality: Reviewers must not disclose the identity of the author or share the manuscript outside the review process.

Steps for Review

1. Manuscript Assignment: Receive the manuscript along with the author's identity. Begin the review within 5-7 days.
2. Evaluation Period (2-4 weeks): Evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodology, and relevance to the journal.
3. Provide Feedback: Offer detailed critiques, suggestions for improvements, and indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

B. Double-Blind Peer Review

Overview

• In Double-Blind Peer Review, both the author and the reviewer are anonymized, ensuring unbiased feedback. This is used for original research articles and case studies where rigorous and impartial review is essential.

Training for Reviewers

• Objectivity: The primary goal of double-blind peer review is to eliminate biases. Reviewers must base their critique entirely on the manuscript’s content without knowledge of the author’s identity.
  • Ask: Is the research scientifically sound? Are the conclusions drawn appropriately from the data?
• Thoroughness: Provide in-depth feedback on the quality of the research design, analysis, and interpretation.
  • Ensure that statistical methods, experiments, and data presentations are accurate and valid.
• Clear Recommendations: Offer clear suggestions for how the manuscript could be improved and whether it meets the standards for publication.
  • Be specific: Where are the gaps in the research? What should be revised?

Steps for Review

1. Anonymized Manuscript Assignment: Reviewers receive a manuscript with all identifying information removed.
2. Evaluation Period (2-4 weeks): Conduct a detailed review based on scientific rigor, clarity, and significance.
3. Provide Feedback: Submit an evaluation that includes specific, constructive feedback while maintaining anonymity.

3. Post-Publication Peer Review

Overview

• In Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR), the review process continues after the manuscript has been published, allowing the wider community to comment, critique, and engage with the research. This method is used in conjunction with original research and commentaries.

Training for Reviewers (Post-Publication)

• Open Dialogue: Engage with the published research by contributing additional insights, critiques, or alternative interpretations.
  • Use evidence-based reasoning to support critiques or additional perspectives.
• Constructive Criticism: Keep feedback focused on improving the understanding of the work, rather than solely pointing out flaws.
  • Ask: What new discussions can be opened? How can the community build on this research?
• Transparency: In PPPR, comments and critiques are typically visible to the public, and authors may respond. Ensure that all feedback is constructive and backed by relevant evidence or analysis.

Steps for Review

1. Post-Publication Review Period: Once the article is published, reviewers can access the work and provide feedback publicly or through organized review panels.
2. Feedback Engagement: The author can respond to critiques, leading to an ongoing conversation that enhances the work's impact and understanding.

4. Open Peer Review

Overview

• In Open Peer Review, both the reviewers and the authors know each other’s identities. The review process is transparent, and review reports may be published alongside the article. This is used for review articles and short reports.

Training for Reviewers

• Transparency and Accountability: Since identities are known, reviewers must ensure that their feedback is constructive, ethical, and well-supported by evidence.
  • Be fair and professional: Avoid personal attacks and focus on the manuscript.
• Public Dialogue: Understand that your review comments may be published along with the article, making them part of the permanent record.
  • Ensure that your review is insightful, detailed, and beneficial to the broader academic community.
• Engagement with Authors: Open peer review allows for direct communication between reviewers and authors. Use this opportunity to foster collaboration and dialogue.
  • Ask: How can I help the author improve their manuscript in a meaningful way?

Steps for Review

1. Manuscript Assignment: Reviewers receive the manuscript along with the author’s identity. Both parties are aware of each other.
2. Evaluation Period (2-4 weeks): Conduct the review, knowing that the comments and critique may be made public.
3. Provide Feedback: Offer thorough, constructive feedback. Ensure that your review is professional, as it will be accessible to others.

General Reviewer Training Principles for Professionals in Business Journal, PIBJ

Regardless of the peer review method, all reviewers for PIBJ must adhere to the following principles:

• Confidentiality: Except for open peer review, all reviewer comments and manuscripts are confidential.
• Timeliness: Complete the review within the designated timeline (2-4 weeks) to ensure a smooth and efficient review process.
• Conflict of Interest: Disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity of the review.
• Constructive Critique: Focus on improving the manuscript by offering specific, actionable feedback.
• Ethical Conduct: Reviewers must ensure they are adhering to the highest ethical standards, avoiding plagiarism, bias, or unethical behavior.

These detailed guidelines ensure the integrity and quality of the Professionals in Business Journal (PIBJ) peer review process. They also provide clear expectations and procedures for reviewers, editors, and authors to follow, ensuring fairness, transparency, and academic rigor.