Reviewer Guidelines PDF

Reviewer Comments to the Author(s)

Specific/Substantive Considerations

  1. Does the article sufficiently address the “practical” implications of the issue for a
    business practitioner?
  2. Does the article sufficiently integrate biblical perspectives in the discussion, not in the
    manner of casual references but as an integral part of or support for the central theme?
  3. Does the author use sound exegesis and proper hermeneutic principles in applying the
    Scriptures? Is the use of specific Scriptural passages relevant in the argument at hand?
  4. Is the article adequately referenced and its methodology/conclusion a definite advance on
    the current state of discourse or understanding of the subject in the academic realms?

General Considerations

  1. Timeliness. Research-based papers should not exceed 5,000 words in length. Reviewers are requested to complete their reviews and forward their comments within a month from the date they receive the manuscript. If this timeframe cannot be honored, please advise
    the editors accordingly.
  2. Strive for a polite, professional, constructive tone.
  3. Strive to make the review developmental:
    1. Be specific: tell the author what the problems are and how they can be addressed, where possible
    2. Be constructive: even if the problems cannot be fixed in the current study, try to suggest how the author(s) could improve their work for a future effort
    3. Identify strengths: as important as identifying weaknesses; also try to distinguish between limitations that can be fixed versus those that definitely cannot
    4. Consider contribution: keep in mind both technical as well as substantive criteria; there is no point in publishing a paper that is theoretically sound but that fails to
      make a meaningful contribution
  4. DO NOT make a publication recommendation in your comments to the author(s). E.g., “this is an excellent paper that should be accepted.”
  5. Cite page numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
  6. While there is no set guide for the structure of a review, typically reviewers address critical concerns first, followed by less critical points.