Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines of TJEB

1. Purpose and Related Policies

These guidelines provide practical instructions for reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Transdisciplinary Journal of Economics and Business (TJEB). They explain reviewer responsibilities, ethical expectations, review criteria, scoring procedures, and submission requirements for review reports.

These guidelines should be read together with the Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and Competing Interests / Conflict of Interest Policy.

2. Review Process

2.1. Review Type

TJEB applies a double-blind peer review process generally involving two independent reviewers and, where necessary, revised manuscript evaluation. The identities of authors and reviewers must remain confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript.

2.2. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to submit their review within four weeks of receiving the manuscript, unless a different deadline is agreed with the journal. If the reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they must inform the Editorial Coordinator as early as possible.

2.3. Review Materials

Reviewers will normally receive:

  • the anonymised manuscript;
  • the Reviewer Report Template;
  • any supplementary files, where applicable;
  • relevant instructions from the Editorial Office.

For original research articles, reviewers must also complete the Reviewer Scoring Sheet. The Reviewer Report Template is used to provide qualitative comments and an overall recommendation.

2.4. Revised Manuscripts and Second-Round Review

TJEB generally applies a two-round review process. Where a revised manuscript is submitted, reviewers may be asked to evaluate whether:

  • the authors have responded adequately to reviewer and editorial comments;
  • the manuscript has improved sufficiently;
  • remaining issues require further revision;
  • the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

3. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether they:

  • have appropriate expertise to review the manuscript;
  • can complete the review within the required timeframe;
  • have no competing interests that may affect their objectivity;
  • can maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers must declare any competing interests before accepting a review invitation. If a potential competing interest becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, the reviewer must inform the journal immediately.

4. Confidentiality and Ethics

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or review materials with others;
  • discuss the manuscript with unauthorised persons;
  • use unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal advantage;
  • disclose any information about the review process.

Reviewers must also inform the journal of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research, or other publication ethics concerns.

5. Review Criteria and Scoring

Core review criteria include:

  • relevance to TJEB's aims, scope, and readership;
  • originality and contribution to knowledge, policy, or practice;
  • scholarly, methodological, and analytical rigour;
  • clarity of research problem, objective, and argument;
  • appropriate engagement with relevant literature;
  • clarity, structure, and quality of academic writing;
  • validity and clarity of results and interpretation;
  • quality of discussion, conclusion, and limitations.

Scoring Scale

Each criterion in the scoring sheet should be scored using the following scale:

  • 0 = Unsatisfactory
  • 1 = Moderately satisfactory
  • 2 = Satisfactory

The total score is converted into a percentage:

  • Up to 59%: Reject
  • 60%–74%: Request major revisions
  • 75%–89%: Accept with minor revisions
  • More than 90%: Accept

Recommendations

Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Request major revisions
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC).

6. Review Comments

Reviewer comments should be objective, constructive, specific, respectful, and useful for both authors and editors. Reviewers should clearly distinguish between:

  • essential revisions required for publication;
  • optional suggestions for improvement;
  • comments intended only for the editor.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism, unsupported claims, or dismissive language. Where detailed text-level comments are needed, reviewers may use Track Changes in the manuscript Word file, ensuring their identity is removed from document metadata.

7. Contact

For questions about the review process, deadlines, or submission of review reports, please contact the Editorial Office at: info.tjeb@muls.edu.mn