Instructions for Reviewers

JBAO seeks to publish articles of the highest quality about a wide variety of areas related to business administration. The goal of the review process is to make sure that every article published by JBAO meets this high standard.

Each article submitted to JBAO is subjected to the following review process:

From all of the submitted papers, the editors will select papers that are suitable for inclusion in the journal, based upon their consistency with the journal's stated mission.

For each suitable paper the editors will assign up to two referees to review the paper. The reviewing process is based on the concept of blind review, i.e., the reviewer does not know the identity of the author.

After a careful review of the paper, referee(s) will send it back to the editors with comments to the editors, accept/reject/revise recommendations, and suggestions to authors about how to revise the paper.

The editors will make the final decision to accept, reject, accept conditionally, or reject with an invitation to revise and resubmit. The final decision will be based on the recommendations of the reviewers and upon their judgment about the quality of the paper, its alignment with the mission of the journal, and its interest to the journal's audience. The editor will transmit the reviews and the final decision to the author.

Electronic Review. ALL STAGES OF THE REVIEW ARE ELECTRONIC! You will be solicited by e-mail, you should acknowledge by e-mail, and you should send your review to the editor by e-mail.

Access to the Manuscript. Once you agree to be a reviewer for JBAO, the editor will transmit a copy of the manuscript to you by e-mail.

Record Keeping. Keep a copy of the review documents for future use in the event that the authors resubmit a revised manuscript.

Blind Review. JBAO has instituted a blind review process. The main purpose of the system is to reduce perceived bias in the review process. The editor handling a particular manuscript will know the names of the authors but the reviewers will not. In actual implementation, we ask authors to supply us with manuscripts not having any identifying marks. There will always be cases where it is impossible to preserve anonymity, but we ask authors to make a best effort.

Timeliness. We ask that all reviews be completed within four to six weeks. If more time is needed please let the editor know when you expect to complete the review. A less comprehensive review in shorter time will often be more useful than a delayed one.

Comments to Authors. We nearly always send reports from reviewers verbatim to authors. Please express your criticisms with civility. Papers can be strongly criticized without undue harshness. Specific criticisms are preferred to broad statements. Please acknowledge whatever is good in the manuscript.

Reviewer Confidentiality. We never disclose the names of reviewers to authors, even when the reviewers explicitly permit such disclosures. You should regard a submitted manuscript as a confidential document. You should not use or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the permission of the authors. Since there is no direct communication between authors and reviewers concerning a manuscript, that permission can only be obtained via the Editor.

NOTE: The tone of the "Comments" should reflect the philosophy that the reviewer is a colleague to the author who will help the author bring the manuscript to publication. Thus, your responsibility to assist the author to communicate ideas central to the study by providing specific constructive criticism. No scholarly effort deserves hypercritical or rude comments, such as "The author clearly does not know what reliability is." If in your judgment a manuscript is poorly researched, poorly written, or poorly documented, write a critique that will uncover the weaknesses but also guide the author toward an acceptable revision or to an understanding of why the paper was not accepted. Take into consideration that your comments to the author will be read by the Editor, the author, and another reviewer during the second review.

Select one of the four options that reflects your evaluation:

Unable to review due to excessive mechanical errors. The manuscript will be returned to author/s for corrections.

Publish with minor revisions. This refers to a manuscript that has effectively presented a study that makes a significant contribution to the field of business administration.

Minor revision: This refers to a situation when a portion of the manuscript needs more attention, such as providing additional documentation, expanding the discussion of the findings, including key related studies, providing additional details for the purposes of replication, or when the revision will be fairly routine, such as a reduction in overall length. This choice indicates that you, as the reviewer, believe the nature of the minor revisions is such that they can be negotiated between Author/s and Editorial Staff without further involvement of reviewers. The manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.

Major revision. This pertains to a situation when more than one section of the manuscript needs attention or when extensive rewriting will be required. Examples of the requirement for major revision include the need to place the study into a broader framework of scholarship, reanalyze the data, submit the data to additional statistical analysis, create a context for the study, or rework data that have been over-interpreted. The manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.

Reject. This applies to the manuscript with an excessive number of mechanical errors, when there is little or no hope of successful revision because of a major methodological flaw, the article is simply inappropriate for JBAO, or the article has been published elsewhere. The manuscript will be returned and the author will be notified of the decision to reject.

During the second review of the manuscript, attention should be focused on whether the reviewer's initial comments/suggestions have been addressed by the authors. If revisions are satisfactory, the manuscript will be returned to the editor and the authors will be notified of acceptance for publication. If revisions are unsatisfactory, the manuscript will be returned to the editor and authors will be notified that additional revision is required.

Split Reviews. In the event that two reviewers are involved in the review process for a single manuscript, it is possible that the reviewers' evaluations may be diametrically opposed. For example, a manuscript that you believe is ready for publication with editing may be recommended for major revision or rejection by the other reviewer. In the case of split reviews, the editor may select a third reviewer to serve as a tie breaker.

Procedure for Return of Reviews. Promptly return all reviews to the editor who assigned the review to you. When retaining a copy of a manuscript for use in further reviews, it is your responsibility not to share or discuss the manuscript with anyone else. Unpublished manuscripts are the property of the author.

Thank you for your service to the profession!