Loading

Image: Referees and peer reviewers

Pezzottaite Journals publishes original papers in the theory and practice of management. Our primary requirement is that accepted papers make a significant contribution to our knowledge of management, both theoretical and practical. In order to provide quality feedback to our authors, it is important that all reviewers keep goals of Pezzottaite Journals in mind throughout the review process.

Quality peer reviews are essential for insuring the quality of scholarly journals. Your evaluation will play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication. We place a great deal of trust in you. We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the authors, respectful of our obligations to the readership, and to evaluate the manuscript carefully and in depth. At the same time, on behalf of the Pezzottaite Journals, we are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.

Pezzottaite Journals aims to match the best global standards for manuscripts submitted for publication. Pezzottaite Journals policy of double blind reviewing means that neither the author nor referee know of the identity of each other. To make this effective, the referee should not discuss the paper or the fact they are referring it with anyone other than the editor until the paper has been accepted or rejected. Finally, please do not put recommendations on the review you intend for the author. These should be communicated only to the Pezzottaite Journals, who is responsible for the final publication decision. 

The double blind peer review process provides:

  • Helpful assessment of a paper's strengths, and diagnosis of its problem areas;
  • Clear, constructive advice on how to develop and improve the manuscript prompt feedback.

To do justice to author's works, we expect reviewers to provide at least one full page of comments uploaded into the Peer Review form or appended to their version of the manuscript.

To ensure the integrity of the blind peer review process, information in manuscripts must have guaranteed confidentiality. Reviewers are thus requested to refrain from discussing the manuscript with another person.

Principles of Review Process

Confidentiality

Manuscript is a privileged communication. Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.

Timelines

It is important when invited to review a paper that you not only reply quickly but you complete your review on time. There is nothing worse for authors than for them to have to wait for reviews of their papers beyond the stated time we give them. Usually, the quicker the reviews, the more they will appreciate publishing with us. If you cannot do the review in the time available tell us immediately so we can get another reviewer to take your place.

Quality of Reviews

Besides being timely, reviews should be of high quality. They should make clear to the author just what constitutes a contribution to the filed, where his or the paper succeeds in this and where it fall short. It is important in his respect that the authors feel they have really benefited from the reviews they receive from Pezzottaite Journals. Some suggestions for reviewers

Be Constructive

Even if the paper is not good enough, it is still important that reviewers provide positive feedback, telling the author how the paper could be improved, not just where it falls short. If the problems cannot be rectified in the present paper, suggest how it can be done in further research, which could well be submitted to Pezzottaite Journals.

Be Specific

It is essential that you tell authors exactly what they are doing right and precisely where they are going wrong, in your opinion. Typically, the more particular you can be, the more useful your advice will be. Typically, authors tell us they prefer feedback to be in the form of numbered paragraph, each covering a definite and different point.

Consider Contribution

Whereas academic rigour and coherence are important, we like our reviewers to asses the overall contribution the paper makes to the literature. At Pezzottaite Journals we want the papers we publish to be interesting, relevant and to advance our readers’ understanding of important issues in management. We want them to feel that reading a paper in Pezzottaite Journals is a worthwhile exercise, that doing has really extended or advanced what they know abut something important in management.   

Remember: You Are Not ‘Copy Editor’

Occasionally at Pezzottaite Journals, you will be asked to review a paper by an author whose first language is obviously not English. In these cases you to remind yourself that your job is not to improve grammar or spelling, but to comment on the ideas and arguments about management that are in the paper.

Be Consistent

Pezzottaite Journals requests that reviewers give feedback to authors in line with the reviewers’ recommendations to the editor. One of the worst errors from our point of view is for referees to make favourable comments to authors whilst advising against publication –to the editor. This places the editor in the difficult position of having to reject papers despite apparent positive reviews from the referee to the author.

Conflicts of Interest

If you feel you might have difficulty writing an objective review, please return the paper immediately, unreviewed. If you’re previous or present connection with the author (s) or an author's institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please discuss this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, feel free to contact Editor-In-Chief.

Comments for Author

Reviewers are expected to be experts in the topic and methods associated with the area of the assigned manuscript.  Reviewers may find the following broad questions useful:

  • Is the paper well grounded in the contemporary literature on the topic? Does it help the reader to connect this paper to previous work in the field?
  • Does the paper make clear the contribution it aims to make to that literature? In your view, is the contribution useful? Important? Substantive?
  • Does the paper present a coherent argument for its position? Are positions, propositions or hypotheses in the paper persuasively developed? If an empirical investigation is reported, is the choice of material, methods and analyses used appropriate? And appropriately used? Do conclusions drawn from an enquiry follow persuasively from the argument and investigation reported? How fully does the paper succeed in making its contribution?
  • Are references accurate and timely, and consistent throughout? Do in-text citations appear in references and vice-versa as appropriate?
  • Are heading levels appropriate and concise?
  • Has ethical clearance been shown for research process? Are ethical processes followed included in the body of the article?
  • Is the written expression of the paper clear, concise and accessible to academics with an interest in this field?

Reviewer must identify the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability for publication?

Please include both general and specific comments bearing on these questions, and emphasize your most significant points and must address to one of them as stated below:

General Comments

  • Importance and interest to this journal's readers;
  • Scientific soundness;
  • Originality;
  • Degree to which conclusions are supported;
  • Organization and clarity;
  • Cohesiveness of argument;
  • Length relative to information content;
  • Whether material should be moved to the digital appendices;
  • Conciseness and writing style;
  • Appropriateness for the targeted journal and specific section of the journal.

Specific Comments

Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. Remember that a review lacking substance will generally have less impact than a review that is well-reasoned and rich in content. You need to prepare comments in MS-Word File (2003 or 2007) and upload it on the site through your logins. Comment on any of the following matters that significantly affected your judgment of the paper:

Presentation

Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is a tightly reasoned argument evident throughout the paper? Where does the paper wander from this argument? Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point (s) of the paper? Is the writing concise, easy to follow, interesting?

Length

What portions of the paper should be expanded (?), condensed (?), combined (?), and deleted? (Please don't advise an overall shortening by X%. Be specific!)

Methods

Are they appropriate (?), current (?), and described clearly enough (?) that the work could be repeated by someone else?

Data Presentation

When results are stated in the text of the paper, can you easily verify them by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive? Are all tables and figures necessary (?), clearly labelled (?), well planned (?), and readily interpretable?

Statistical Design & Analysis

Are they appropriate and correct? Can the reader readily discern which measurements or observations are independent of which other measurements or observations? Are replicates correctly identified? Are significance statements justified?

Errors

Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style.

Citations

Are all (and only) pertinent references cited? Are they provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper?

Overlap

Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in press? If so, please provide details.

Fairness & Objectivity

If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Harsh words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your objectivity; as a result, your criticisms will be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author that (1) you have read the entire paper carefully, (2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper, and (3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this paper. If you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.

Anonymity

You may sign your review if you wish. If you choose to remain anonymous, avoid comments to the authors that might serve as clues to your identity. Unless you indicate otherwise (such as by signing your remarks for the authors), we will assume you wish to remain anonymous.

Refer ‘Reviewer Quick Guide to Common Statistical Errors in Scientific Papers’ for more information.

Communication ‘Review’ to Author

Within 1 day of receiving all two reviews, remarks are conveyed to the author (s) together with a summary report from the editor. The editor will correspond with authors and reviewers on any subsequent revision to the paper that may be requested, until a decision is reached on publication.

Refer our ‘Publishing Guidelines’ for more in depth information as reviewer.