For Reviewers

Invitation to Join ABR Volunteer Reviewer Database

Asian Business Review using MANUSCRIPTLINK (a powerful web-based manuscript submission and peer review service platform) on which scholars submit academic manuscripts, and  editorial members invite reviewers for the submitted manuscripts. 

Interested in reviewing to ABR's submission?

We recommend that you review the Reviewers Manual of MANUSCRIPTLINK peer review service platform, as well as the Author Guidelines.

Reviewers need to register with the journal review platform prior to reviewing or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the process. If you are interested in reviewing articles for the journal, please add your contact details, including institutional affiliation, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise. The associate editor/ EIC will send you a notification once approved. 

Invitation to Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the EIC/ associate editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

  • accept or decline any invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract;
  • suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
  • request an extension in case more time is required to compose a report.

As part of the assessment, reviewers will be asked:

  • to rate the originality, significance, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, overall merit and English level of the manuscript;
  • to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
  • to provide a detailed, constructive review report. 

Potential Conflicts of Interests

We ask reviewers to inform the journal editor if they hold a conflict of interests that may prejudice the review report, either in a positive or negative way. The editorial office will check as far as possible before invitation, however we appreciate the cooperation of reviewers in this matter.  

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a fellow researcher, student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

ABR operate single or double blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Review reports are considered confidential and will not be disclosed openly. Note that reviewers are given access to all review reports for manuscripts they review via the online submission system after the final decision has been made. 

Timely Review Reports

ABR aims to provide an efficient and quality publishing service to authors and to the scientific community. We ask reviewers to assist by providing review reports in a timely manner. Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline. 

Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure

All manuscripts sent for publication in ABR are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles, and invited papers). The Journal Manager will perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least one review reports per manuscript.

We ask our authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made.

The final decision is made by the editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief of ABR or the Associate Editor of a Selected Article). Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.

Note that your review report is visible to the authors and associate editor but confidential recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors. 

Rating the Manuscript

Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Originality: Is the question original and well defined?
  • Innovation: Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge? Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?
  • Technical Merit: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used? Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
  • Applicability: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
  • English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
  • Match to ABR Topic: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the journal).

Manuscripts submitted to ABR should meet the standards of publication ethics:

  • Manuscripts should only report results that have not been submitted or published before, even in part.
  • Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without appropriate citation.

If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the editor immediately. 

Overall Recommendation

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

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
  • Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Note that your confidential recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors. 

Review Report

Review reports should contain:

  • Evaluation rating (on five scale parameter [Poor] [Fair] [Good] [Very Good] [Outstanding]) outlining the aim of the paper and Originality, Innovation, Technical Merit, Applicability, English Level, Match to ABR Topic
  • Review summary or comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.
  • Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, figures or citation style. Reviewers need not comment on formatting issues that do not obscure the meaning of the paper, as these will be addressed by editors.

Your comments should not include an indication of whether you think the article should be accepted for publication.

For further guidance about writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:

  1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics
  2. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Tanya Golash-Boza