Guidelines for Reviewers

Below are guidelines for reviewers for The Coastal Business Journal. Click here for the Reviewer Rubric you will use to review the article.

Before you begin

You will receive and email inviting you to review a manuscript for The Coastal Business Journal. When deciding whether to accept the invitation, and we hope you will, here are some things to consider.

Time. The Coastal Business Journal strives to return a decision to authors within 90 days. Please consider the time you have to complete the review in that time frame.

Expertise. Consider whether your expertise is relevant to the general topic of the paper. The CBJ seeks to increase the body of knowledge in a wide range of areas in business administration and business development, particularly (though not exclusively) within coastal geographic regions. The audience is intended to include both practitioner and academic readers and should be written accordingly.

Conflict of Interest. Though blind review is used, rarely a reviewer may find that they recognize the paper. Please disclose any conflict of interest to the editor or associate editor if you believe you work within the same department/institution as the author or have co-written with the author in the past. This will not necessarily eliminate you but will help the editor or associate editor in making a decision.

After considering the above issues, confirm with the editor or associate editor that you are willing to review the manuscript within a reasonable time frame.

When you are ready to review, read the article through first and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you understand what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of the specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.

Your review report

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article are essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

As you are finalizing your review, please review this checklist of items to cover:

  • Summarize the article, in brief, to show you have read and understood the main points.
  • Give your main impressions of the article based on considerations of writing quality, presentation, unique insight into the field, relevance/usefulness, and rigor. Positive feedback and constructive criticism are welcome.
  • Point out any specific points for improving the manuscript – e.g., sections that are missing or do not make sense.
  • Provide constructive comments to the authors that are detailed enough so that they can understand and take action on recommended changes.
  • If you have ethical or plagiarism concerns, please contact the Associate Editor that assigned the manuscript.

Your recommendation

You will be asked to complete your review using the Reviewer Rating form (LINK), and upload this with your review. As part of this form, you will be asked to provide quantitative ratings (on a scale of 1 = poor to 5 = excellent) in the following areas:

  • Extent to which the article introduces an interesting topic or a new perspective.
  • Rigor in theory development, methodology, analysis.
  • Thoroughness in discussion of results/conclusions, practical implications and limitations.
  • Quality of writing, in terms of structure, clarity, grammar.
  • Clear linkage to the mission of the Journal.
  • Overall evaluation of the manuscript as a whole.

Based on the above evaluations and your overall impressions, you will be asked to make one of the following recommendations related to the manuscript:

  • Accept this article with minor (or no) revisions as described in my report.
  • Encourage major revisions as described in my report. This is a revise and resubmit recommendation, and the author will need to undergo an additional review.
  • Reject this article without an option to resubmit.

Ethical standards

If you accept the invitation to review an article for The Coastal Business Journal, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you cannot share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.