Reviewers' Role and Responsibilities

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity and credibility of the DELSU Journal of Management Sciences (DELJOMS). Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive and confidential assessment of submitted manuscripts and to advise the Editor on whether a manuscript is suitable for publication.

Key Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to carefully assess each manuscript and provide clear, constructive and evidence-based comments. In particular, reviewers should:

1. Assess the relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of DELJOMS.
2. Evaluate the originality and novelty of the research and determine whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge.
3. Assess whether the research problem, objectives and research questions or hypotheses are clearly presented.
4. Examine the adequacy and appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
5. Evaluate whether the research methodology is appropriate, clearly described and sufficiently rigorous.
6. Assess the appropriateness of the sampling procedures, data collection techniques and analytical methods.
7. Check whether statistical analyses, where applicable, have been appropriately conducted and correctly interpreted.
8. Determine whether the findings are logically presented and adequately supported by the evidence provided.
9. Assess whether the conclusions follow logically from the findings and whether the implications are adequately discussed.
10. Check whether relevant and current scholarly literature has been appropriately cited and discussed.
11. Identify significant omissions, inconsistencies, unsupported claims or methodological weaknesses.
12. Assess the clarity, organisation, readability and academic quality of the manuscript.
13. Identify errors relating to grammar, spelling, punctuation, tables, figures, equations, scientific notation, references and bibliography.
14. Notify the Editor if the manuscript appears to contain substantial overlap with previously published work, plagiarism or other possible ethical concerns.
15. Provide recommendations that can assist the authors in improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

DELJOMS operates a rigorous peer-review process. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Manuscripts, data, findings and other information contained in a submission must not be shared with or discussed with persons outside the authorised editorial process.

Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal research, professional advantage or any other purpose without the express permission of the authors and the journal.

Reviewers should immediately disclose to the Editor any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity. Where a conflict is significant, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.

Double-Blind Peer Review

DELJOMS follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The purpose of double-blind review is to minimise potential bias and ensure that manuscripts are assessed primarily on their scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance and contribution to knowledge.

What Reviewers Should Consider

Reviewer's Recommendation

After carefully evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the Editor. The principal recommendations are:

Preparing the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to provide balanced, respectful and constructive comments. The review report should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor issues relating to presentation, language or formatting.

Where revisions are recommended, reviewers should provide specific suggestions that enable authors to understand the required improvements. Personal, offensive, dismissive or unnecessarily hostile comments should be avoided.

• Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript.
• Identify the major strengths and weaknesses of the research.
• Provide specific comments on methodology, analysis, results and conclusions.
• Identify important gaps in the literature or theoretical foundation.
• Clearly distinguish major revisions from minor corrections.
• Provide constructive recommendations for improving the manuscript.
• Maintain professional and respectful language throughout the review.

Final Editorial Decision

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not constitute the final publication decision. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board retain responsibility for the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' assessments, the journal's standards and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.