As a reviewer for the Journal of Management and Business Innovation (JOMBINOV), you play a crucial role in maintaining the scientific quality of the publication. The review must be conducted objectively, constructively, and professionally, in accordance with academic ethics. This guide aims to help reviewers systematically assess manuscripts and provide useful feedback to authors and editors.

1

As a reviewer, general principles must always be strictly adhered to. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and related data, ensuring that unpublished information is not disseminated or used for personal gain. Additionally, it is important to ensure there are no conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the assessment; if there are any professional, personal, or financial relationships with the author, this must be immediately reported to the editor. During the review process, reviewers must also be constructive and objective, focusing on assessing the scientific quality of the manuscript and not the author. The comments provided should be constructive, clear, and include suggestions for improvement whenever possible. Timeliness is also important so that the manuscript can be processed efficiently according to the journal's publication schedule.

2

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are advised to start with a general assessment to ensure the topic's suitability with the journal's scope, the relevance of the scientific contribution, and the manuscript's language and format. Subsequently, reviewers thoroughly assess the manuscript's structure. The title and abstract should be clear, informative, and reflect the research content, while the introduction needs to present sufficient, up-to-date background information and clearly explain the research objectives. The methods section should be accurate and described in detail so that the research can be replicated, while the results and discussion need to be presented logically, connecting the findings with previous literature, and their interpretation must be objective. The conclusion should be relevant, supported by data, and provide direction for further research.

3

In addition to structure, reviewers must also assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. This includes adherence to research ethics, data validity, completeness and relevance of references, and the originality of the manuscript without plagiarism. A good review emphasizes improving the scientific quality of the manuscript by providing clear and constructive comments. Comments for the author should highlight the strengths of the manuscript as well as the weaknesses that need improvement, using polite and professional language. On the other hand, comments for the editor should include a final recommendation, supporting reasons, and any important notes regarding sensitive issues or potential conflicts of interest.

4

After reviewing the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer typically provides a final recommendation reflecting the quality of the manuscript. Recommendation options include accepting without revision if the manuscript is already of high quality, requesting minor revisions for small improvements, major revisions if there are significant weaknesses, or rejecting the manuscript if it does not meet scientific standards or is not relevant to the journal's scope.

5

The entire review process must be conducted with the utmost ethics and professionalism. Reviewers should avoid personal attacks on the author and always respect the author's efforts and hard work. It's important to remember that the review process is a scientific collaboration aimed at improving the quality of research and publications, not just a mere evaluation. With an objective, constructive, and professional attitude, reviewers play a direct role in maintaining the integrity and reputation of this journal.