01  Reviewer Guidelines

The peer review process is essential to maintaining the quality, integrity, and relevance of scholarly publications. Reviewers for the Journal of Economics and Management Technologies (JEMTECH) are expected to provide objective, constructive, ethical, and timely assessments that support authors and inform editorial decisions.

02  Reviewer Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Keep the manuscript and review information strictly confidential.
• Objectivity: Provide fair, evidence-based, and constructive comments focused on the manuscript.
• Conflict of Interest: Decline the review when a personal, professional, financial, or other conflict may affect impartiality.
• Timeliness: Submit the review within the assigned deadline or contact the editor if additional time is required.

03  Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

• Originality: Novelty and contribution to the field.
• Relevance: Alignment with the scope and readership of JEMTECH.
• Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness, clarity, and robustness of the research methods.
• Data and Analysis: Adequacy of analysis and validity of interpretation.
• Clarity and Organization: Logical structure, clear presentation, and appropriate academic language.
• References: Relevance, quality, and currency of cited scholarly sources.

04  Review Report Structure

• Summary: Briefly describe the manuscript and its main contribution.
• Strengths: Identify important strengths of the research and presentation.
• Areas for Improvement: Identify methodological, analytical, structural, or presentation issues.
• Specific Suggestions: Provide clear and actionable recommendations for improvement.

05  Recommendation Categories

• Accept: No substantive revision is required.
• Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before publication can be considered.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, including possible methodological or analytical improvements.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

06  Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor of concerns related to:

• Plagiarism or Duplicate Publication: Unattributed similarity or substantial overlap with existing work.
• Data Fabrication or Falsification: Suspected fabrication, manipulation, or inappropriate alteration of research data.
• Research Misconduct: Potential violations of research ethics, including concerns regarding consent or unethical research procedures.