Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWRES

REVIEWERS

• The reviewers of MTSRBID assist the editors in taking the decision of publishing a submitted manuscript. By formulating suggestions to the authors, the reviewers can contribute to the improvement of submitted works.
• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• The reviewers should comment on the originality of submissions and should be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.

AUTHORS

• The authors ensure that they have submitted original works and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
• Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is considered an unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
• Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
• When an author founds error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to notify the journal editor and cooperate with him to retract or correct the paper.

Reviewers of the journal are asked to consider the following points during their evaluation:

• Does the paper have clear aims and objectives/research questions that can be achieved within the scope of the journal paper?
• Does the paper make a contribution to knowledge?
• Is the work suitably grounded in the literature to justify its contribution and frame the analysis/evaluation?
• Is the research/evaluation methodology justified, clear, and appropriate? (Including ethical considerations/approval where appropriate)
• Does the analysis/ evaluation have a clear flow and logical argument?
• Does the analysis/evaluation link to an appropriate discussion and conclusions?
• Is it presented in a way that is suitable for the journal’s international audience?

Peer reviewers will have five possible options, for any paper:

• Accept manuscript (i.e. no need for any revision).
• Accept after revision (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested revisions).
• Revise and resubmit (i.e. accepted or rejected after revisions have been made - the paper will be sent out for another peer review round).
• Reject manuscript (i.e. if the manuscript is not sufficiently developed for publication)
• See comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above).
• In addition, papers may be returned to authors by the Editors prior to review, if judged to be out of scope, out of the limits of the word length guidance or not sufficiently prepared for publication.
• To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 6 weeks for revision. After 6 weeks, revised manuscripts will normally be considered new submissions.