Reviewer Policies

  1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers)
  2. Reviewers Guidelines

1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers)

To maintain the integrity and objectivity of the peer review process, reviewers of the International Journal of HRM and Organizational Behavior must adhere to strict guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and financial disclosures. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or affect the impartiality of their review.

A. Definition of Conflict of Interest (COI)

A conflict of interest occurs when personal, professional, or financial relationships could bias a reviewer’s evaluation of a manuscript. Common examples of conflicts of interest for reviewers include, but are not limited to:

  • Personal relationships: The reviewer has a personal relationship with the author(s), such as a close family member, friend, or colleague.
  • Collaborative relationships: The reviewer has worked closely with the author(s) in the past or has ongoing research collaborations with the author(s).
  • Professional rivalries: The reviewer has a professional or intellectual rivalry with the author(s) that could compromise objectivity.
  • Financial interests: The reviewer has financial interests (e.g., ownership of stock, funding, or direct financial relationships) with the author’s institution, funding agency, or any organization involved in the research.
  • Institutional conflicts: The reviewer and the author(s) belong to the same institution or organization, which may introduce bias.

B. Disclosure Requirements

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest prior to accepting a manuscript for review. If a conflict of interest is identified after agreeing to review, reviewers must immediately notify the editorial team and recuse themselves from the review process. Disclosure includes both financial and non-financial conflicts.

When submitting a review, reviewers must complete a Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form indicating whether they have any conflicts with the manuscript being reviewed. If a conflict is disclosed, the editorial team will make a decision regarding whether to proceed with the review or reassign it to another reviewer.

C. Financial Disclosures

Reviewers should disclose any financial relationships with organizations or individuals that might be seen as influencing the review process. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Research funding: If the reviewer has received funding from any organization involved in the research, or if they have a competing financial interest.
  • Employment: If the reviewer is employed by the same institution as any of the authors or if they are in any way financially linked to the organization or business that may benefit from the outcome of the research.
  • Consulting fees: If the reviewer has been paid for consulting work by any parties related to the manuscript’s subject matter or authors.

The International Journal of HRM and Organizational Behavior ensures that financial disclosures are kept confidential, and the journal commits to maintaining a review process free from any undue influence.

D. Editor-In-Chief’s Decision

If a reviewer has disclosed a conflict of interest, the Editor-in-Chief will determine whether the conflict is serious enough to affect the integrity of the review. In some cases, the editor may decide to remove the reviewer from the process to ensure an unbiased assessment of the manuscript. The editor may also opt to assign the manuscript to a new reviewer who does not have any conflicts of interest.

 

Here are the Reviewers Guidelines and Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers) tailored for the International Journal of Human Resource Management (HRM) and Organizational Behavior (OB).

2. Reviewers Guidelines

The International Journal of HRM and Organizational Behavior relies on expert peer reviewers to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic rigor of the manuscripts we publish. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and timely feedback on the manuscripts assigned to them, following the guidelines outlined below:

A. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Originality: Is the research novel and contributing new knowledge to the field of HRM and organizational behavior? Is the study's purpose clear and well-defined?
  • Methodology: Is the research design appropriate for the research question? Are the methods sound and well-executed? Are the data analysis techniques properly applied?
  • Literature Review: Does the manuscript provide a thorough review of relevant literature? Are the theoretical foundations and conceptual frameworks used appropriately?
  • Results and Interpretation: Are the findings clearly presented and accurately interpreted? Are conclusions drawn based on the data, and are they logically supported by the evidence?
  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written, clear, and logically organized? Are there any issues with grammar, spelling, or formatting?
  • Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript comply with ethical guidelines, particularly in terms of human subject research (if applicable)? Is proper informed consent and ethical approval disclosed?

B. Review Process

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript is confidential and should not be shared with others without explicit permission from the editorial team. Reviewers should not use any information from the manuscript for personal gain or professional advantage.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be constructive and aimed at improving the manuscript. When suggesting revisions, reviewers should provide specific recommendations, examples, and explanations. Feedback should be respectful and professional.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the specified timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial team promptly.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (as outlined in the following section). If a conflict arises after accepting the review, reviewers should inform the editor and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

C. Final Recommendation

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide a final recommendation:

  • Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and does not require major revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor adjustments before publication.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and should not be published in its current form.