Before accepting

• Expertise: Accept only if you can evaluate the central question, evidence and method; identify any aspect outside your competence.
• Time: Confirm that you can return a careful report by the requested date; ask early for an extension if necessary.
• Conflicts: Disclose recent collaboration, institutional connection, personal relationship, competition, financial interest, strong prior position or other circumstance that could affect impartiality.
• Identity: If you believe you know the author, do not investigate further; tell the editor if the inference creates a conflict.

Confidentiality and acceptable tool use

The manuscript, files, correspondence and review are confidential. Do not circulate them, use unpublished ideas, contact authors or delegate the review without permission. Never place confidential material in public or third-party AI systems. The reviewer remains responsible for the report.

Evaluation criteria

Criterion	Questions for the reviewer
Fit and contribution	Does the paper fit JEBSS and make a clear contribution?
Literature and framing	Is the question grounded in relevant work and are sources used accurately?
Method and evidence	Is the design appropriate, transparent and ethical; do the data support the claims?
Analysis and reasoning	Are procedures coherent, limitations recognised and alternatives considered?
Results and conclusions	Are findings clear and proportionate to the evidence?
Presentation	Are the structure, tables, figures, citations and language publication-ready?
Transparency	Are funding, conflicts, data, ethics, contributions and AI use declared?

Writing the report

1. Begin with a short neutral summary of the paper’s question, approach and claimed contribution.
2. Identify the most important strengths so the editor understands what may be preserved.
3. List major concerns in priority order and explain why each affects validity, contribution or transparency.
4. Separate minor corrections, clarity points and optional suggestions from essential revisions.
5. Check that the recommendation is consistent with the written report.

Tone and fairness

• Comment on the work, not the authors’ character, identity or institutional location.
• Use direct but respectful language and explain the evidence for criticism.
• Do not impose a preferred theory or method when the chosen approach is valid and justified.
• Do not rewrite the paper or impose nonessential work; request citations only for accuracy, context or fairness.

Suspected misconduct

Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, manipulation, ethics problems or duplicate publication confidentially with specific evidence. Do not contact the authors or investigate beyond the review task.

Recommendation categories

• Reject: Fundamental scope, originality, validity or ethics problems cannot reasonably be resolved.
• Major revision: Potentially publishable, but substantial changes are required.
• Minor revision: The central work is sound; limited corrections or clarification are needed.
• Accept subject to checks: Scholarly issues are resolved; final editorial or production checks remain.

Suggested timing

Reviewers are normally asked to answer an invitation within five days and submit a report within three weeks. If circumstances change, inform the editor promptly; these periods are targets.