Reviewer Guidelines

We, at Economics and Finance Review (EFR), believe that quality peer reviews are not only crucial for ensuring the quality of academic journals but also for the quality of education as a whole which is a right of every single individual and for this, we need your assistance. Your evaluation of the research articles submitted to us will play a key role in our decision of accepting them. We trust that after having accepted to review the article, you will be providing us the timely review, you will be fair in whole of the review process, and you will be considerate of the rights of the authors of the submitted work and to evaluate the article conscientiously and in depth.

Timeliness of the Reviews

Put yourself into the authors’ shoes and respond back on the stipulated time because waiting for the feedback of your work can prove to be very anxious time. The time available for reviewing an article for this journal is one week. If you cannot meet the deadline of the review, you should contact the editor of the journal immediately so that the article can be sent to another reviewer. If one reviewer sends the review results late, it can put at risk all the hard work of other reviewers and so can the reputation of EFR be jeopardized. Sending an article’s review late may further add to the anxiousness of the author(s).

Confidentiality of the Reviews

We make sure the confidentiality of all the correspondence between authors and journal and between journal and reviewers, and except the reviewers in turn to keep the submitted work confidential. Kindly avoid showing or discussing it with anyone except to seek any assistance for any technical point. Even if you think your friends and colleagues are more competent to review the submitted work of authors, do not pass it to another friend without prior permission from the editor of EFR.

Fairness and objectivity of the Reviews

If you find that submitted work is unsound, criticize the work and not the author. As a reviewer if you use harsh and mean words, it will put the author in a doubt of your objectivity and so your criticism will be rejected even if they are correct! Your comments about the submitted work which are sent to the author(s) should clearly depict that you have read the entire manuscript conscientiously and in depth, that your criticism is fair and correct, that your comments are developmental in nature and that you are qualified enough to provide an expert opinion about the submitted work.

Quality of the Reviews

Timely reviews, confidentiality, fairness and objectivity of the reviews are only few parts of the equation. The real work starts when you will have to maintain the quality standards of writing comments to the author(s). It is important to note here that author(s) of the submitted work have put their great deal of effort and time so it is advised to be developmental and courteous. Try to find both strengths of the article and the areas which need to be improved. Try to use the words like ‘your work’ instead of ‘author’s work’ to provide personalized review. In addition, be specific and use numbering for your comments for it will help the author(s) to understand the comments completely and in an easy way.

Reviewers should usually consider the following general things while reviewing an article:

- Significance of the study
- Novelty
- Extent to which the findings are supported
- Clarity of the article
- Extension of the existing literature as a minimum
- Conscientiousness
- Cohesiveness
- Composition and organization of the idea presented
- Conciseness
- Suitability of the article for this journal

Ask yourself few questions while reviewing the manuscript. These following questions can proved to be useful hints while you go through a manuscript:

- Is the submitted manuscript successful in creating, extending or advancing a business or management theory? 
- Is the manuscript significant and interesting enough to be accepted? 
- Are ideas and arguments presented in a meaningful way?
- Do the hypotheses flow from the existing literature?
- Are methods appropriate, clear and current so that it helps others in defining their methodologies?
- What parts of the manuscript should be expanded or condensed so as to be concise and clear at the same time?
- Does the submitted work tell a cohesive story?
- Do the title, abstract, key words chosen, introduction and findings of the manuscript consistently and precisely reveal the vital points of the study?
- Can the results mentioned in the study be easily verified from the tables and figures? Are the tables and figures labeled and well planned?
- Does the manuscript have the clear implications for future research?
- Are limitations and gaps identified by the authors?
- Does the submitted work have a well structured and expressed theoretical framework?
- Is statistical design and analysis appropriate, correct and supported by a well written interpretation?
- Are citations of references according to APA 6th ed. Manual?
- Is the submitted work overlapping with other published and in-press articles?