I. Reviewer Code of conduct

The peer-review process is a vital component of scholarly publishing, and JIEM really appreciates the effort and time spent on reviewing the papers. To help ensure that peer review at JIEM is constructive and beneficial to authors, readers, and other reviewers, the Journal asks that reviewers:

Read the article fullyplease read the full text of the manuscript and view all associated figures, tables, and data;

Be thorough –  a peer review report should discuss the paper in full and from an individual viewpoint; it should show your understanding of the manuscript;

Be specific – to ensure the authors can fully address the issues, your comments should be specific with as much detail as possible;

Be constructive in your criticism – any concerns or criticisms you may have in your review are welcome, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner;

Avoid derogatory comments or tonereview as you wish to be reviewed and ensure that your comments focus on the scientific content of the article in question rather than the authors themselves.

Be confidential - The reviewer must treat the materials as confidential documents. This means the reviewer can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor and the review information is not shared with anyone.


II. Guideline for reviewing

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review from the Journal, consider the following questions:

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – any delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, we hope you can provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

When you are able to review

The invited reviewers should respond to JIEM Editorial Office as soon as possible.

- Accept or decline an invitation based on the manuscript title and abstract;

- Suggest an alternative reviewer if you are not able to accept an invitation;

- Inform us if you need more time to make a reviewing report.

- In the first round of the double-blind peer-review process, reviewers will be asked to conduct a detailed and constructive report as follows:

  1. General comments on

- The conceptual/ theoretical contribution

- The empirical contribution

- The policy/ practical contribution and the quality of the manuscript.

- The quality of the abstract.

The abstract should include the main aspects of the study, including (i) the purpose of the study; (ii) data and research methodology; (iii) results/findings; and (iv) conclusion and recommendations (if any). The length of the abstract should be between 150-250 words

- If there are any ethical questions (e.g., plagiarism, conflict of interest), the reviewer is expected to inform JIEM Editorial Office

  1. Literature review & theoretical framework
  2. Methodology & data
  3. Results
  4. Discussions
  5. Format & presentation – if in-text citations and references as well as tables, figures, and appendices are presented according to the JIEM’s standards, and the academic writing/language is appropriate
  6. Suggestions for improvements

The reviewers’ relevant suggestions on enhancing the quality of the manuscripts in general. 

  1. Provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript for the JIEM Editorial Board.

In the second round of the double-blind peer-review process, within 7 days, reviewers will be asked to check the revised version of the manuscript and give a recommendation for the publication to JIEM Editorial Board.

Approval Status

Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:

- Accept: the manuscript is accepted without any changes.

- Minor revisions: the manuscript is accepted after minor revisions. The manuscript will not be sent to reviewers for revaluating.

- Major revisions: the authors are expected to revise and resubmit the manuscript with a detailed report of responses to reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript with a report may be sent to the reviewers for further evaluation.

- Reject: the manuscript is rejected without an offer to revise or resubmit to the JIEM.

Reviewers’ recommendations are visible only to JIEM editors.

Final Decision

Based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the JIEM editors will decide to accept or reject the manuscript.


The report template can be downloaded here.