Reviewer Guidelines

General Statement
We recognize that time is a valuable and limited resource. Hence, we sincerely thank our reviewers for dedicating their time and expertise to help uphold the quality standards of our journals. Reviewers are kindly expected, whenever possible, to evaluate revised versions of the manuscripts they have previously reviewed. We also encourage reviewers to refer to our step-by-step guide for reviewing manuscripts.

Confidentiality in the Peer Review Process
IJCER is dedicated to upholding integrity throughout the peer review process. We require all reviewers to adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which include maintaining strict confidentiality, avoiding the use of information gained during the review for personal or others’ benefit, and refraining from any actions that could harm or discredit others. Reviewers must not disclose any part of the manuscript or related communications, either during or after the review process. This confidentiality obligation applies to all aspects of the review and its correspondence, meaning reviewers must never contact authors directly at any point in the peer review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities
A peer reviewer is responsible for assessing manuscripts within their area of expertise by reading, analyzing, and providing objective, constructive feedback to the author. Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, suggest ways to enhance its quality, and evaluate its relevance, accuracy, and originality.

Before accepting a review, please consider:

  1. Expertise – Does the article align with your area of specialization? If not, promptly notify the editor and, if possible, recommend another qualified reviewer.
  2. Availability – Can you complete the review within two weeks? If more time is required, inform the editor as early as possible or suggest a replacement reviewer.
  3. Conflict of Interest – Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. Having a conflict does not automatically disqualify you, but transparency is essential. If uncertain, contact the editorial office.

Review Considerations
When evaluating a manuscript, please assess the following aspects:

  • Title – Does it clearly represent the content?
  • Abstract – Does it accurately summarize the article?
  • Introduction – Does it present the research context, justify the problem addressed, and state the purpose clearly? The introduction should summarize relevant studies, explain hypotheses, and outline the research design or approach.

Article Content
To assess originality and suitability for publication, determine whether the manuscript contains plagiarism exceeding 25%. A brief literature check (e.g., via Scopus or similar databases) may be helpful.
Consider:

  • Has similar research been published before, and if so, does this work still offer new value?
  • Is the paper sufficiently novel, in-depth, and engaging?
  • Does it contribute to existing knowledge?
  • Does it meet the journal’s standards and fit its aims and scope?

Methodology
Evaluate the clarity, completeness, and rigor of the methods:

  • Are data collection procedures clearly described?
  • Are the theoretical foundations appropriate and relevant?
  • Is the research design suitable for addressing the stated objectives?
  • Are there enough details for replication?
  • Are new methods introduced and explained adequately?
  • Are sampling methods, tools, and materials properly detailed?
  • Is data recording and measurement well described?

Results
The results section should clearly and logically present research findings. Assess whether the data analysis is appropriate and whether proper statistical tools are used. If you believe a better analytical method is available, you may suggest it, but detailed interpretations belong in the discussion section.

Discussion and Conclusion
Consider whether:

  • The claims are supported by the data.
  • The author compares findings with previous studies.
  • The results contradict established theories.
  • The conclusions suggest meaningful directions for future research.

Tables and Figures
Do the tables and figures effectively support the text and present data in a clear, interpretable way?

Writing Style

  • The author should provide a critical and systematic review of relevant literature.
  • The paper must focus on a specific topic.
  • All text should be in proper, coherent English.
  • Writing must be clear, logical, and engaging.

Key Points to Consider
The paper should provide a unique perspective on topics such as marketing management, financial management, strategic management, operations, human resources, e-business, knowledge management, accounting, management control systems, information systems, international business, business ethics, sustainability, and entrepreneurship.

Original Research

  1. Empirical Studies – Should present original data offering innovative approaches to improving systems, processes, or analytical precision.
  2. Policy and Observational Research – Should evaluate feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of results in relevant management fields.
  3. Case Studies – Should describe real-world challenges in management and derive lessons or recommendations for future practice.

References
May include:

  • Interviews (First-person accounts)
  • Book reviews
  • Product or technology insights

Final Review Notes

  • All review reports are strictly confidential.
  • If you wish to discuss the article with a colleague, notify the editor first.
  • Do not contact the author directly.

Ethical Concerns:

  • Plagiarism: Report any suspected plagiarism with supporting details.
  • Fraud: If you believe data or findings are fabricated, inform the editor immediately.

 

Please submit your completed review by the stated deadline. Your recommendations will be considered in the editor’s final decision, and your honest, professional feedback is greatly appreciated.

When submitting comments, clearly separate those intended only for the editor from those that can be shared with the author.