Guidelines for Reviewers
Please receive the special thanks of the editorial team for your contribution to the progress and success of the Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy journal.
Description of the Peer Review Process
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic publication.
Purpose of peer review
Peer review is a key element of scientific publishing, and it serves two purposes: (a) filtering the research, to ensure it deserves being published; (b) improving research quality, by highlighting key points and correcting errors.
Selection of the review team
To ensure the high-quality and the objectivity of the review, at least two reviewers associated to each proposal are selected based on the following principles: they are specialists in the field of the submitted article, and they are from different countries of origin so to support an international perspective.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Authors who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process, so that the relevant reviewers may be contacted. The reviewer should be able to send the review in maximum four weeks.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors. This also applies to other reviewers’ comments to the author which are shared with all reviewers on decision.
To protect authors’ rights and the confidentiality of their research, this journal does not currently allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services by reviewers or editors in the peer review and manuscript evaluation process. We are actively evaluating compliant AI tools and may revise this policy in the future.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Independent, external reviewers, who are experts in the given academic field, are not affiliated with the research centre represented by the author.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer´s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. If reviewers have any conflicts of interest with an assigned submission, they should acknowledge them and inform the editors by email before further action is taken. In such cases, the editors will immediately unassign the inappropriate reviewer and select new reviewers to evaluate the manuscript.
Writing the review
Reviewers are invited to write the review paying attention to the following aspects:
Originality. Is the article innovative enough in its respective field of research? Is the research question an important one? Does the research design represent a new approach?
Structure. Is the article clearly laid out, including all the key parts (abstract, key words, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions)?
Does the title clearly describe the purpose of the article?
Does the abstract clearly reflect the content of the article?
Does the introduction clearly state the problem which is investigated, and what the author wants to achieve? Does it state the hypothesis/es and summarize previous literature?
Does the methodology provide sufficient information as to make the research replicable? Is the design suitable for the problem investigated? Is there enough emphasis on data collection? Is the sampling appropriate? Are the results logically presented? Are statistics correct? Are analyses appropriate?
Do claims in the conclusions seem reasonable, and supported by results? Do authors relate to initial hypotheses and to previous research? Do conclusions explain how does the article contribute to knowledge advancement?
Is the language accurate and well mastered? Do illustrations in the paper clearly inform the reader, and are they consistent with the story?
Previous research. Does the article properly refer to previous research? Are there key references missing? Are the references accurate?
Ethical issues. Do you suspect plagiarism, fraud, or issues concerning the confidentiality of the research, in case it involves human subjects? Please inform the editor.
For further details, please download the Review Form.
Editors have the possibility to rate reviewers and provide them with a score based on the quality of their review and average turnaround time.
The average time from submission to first decision is 30 days.
Upon submission acceptance, the journal provides English-language editing and technical editing to manuscripts in need, these services being offered by the MDKE technical assistants free of charge.
