Thank you for reviewing for the Crossroads International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research. Reviewers protect the quality of the Journal and help authors improve their work. These guidelines explain what we ask of you and how to write a review that serves both the editor and the author.
1. Before you accept an invitation
Please accept an invitation only if the manuscript falls within your expertise, you can return the review within 14 to 21 days (the deadline appears in the invitation), and you have no conflict of interest. Decline, or consult the editor, if you:
- suspect you know the identity of the authors;
- work at the same institution as a likely author;
- have collaborated with, supervised or been supervised by a likely author in the last three years;
- have a financial, professional or personal interest in the outcome; or
- are reviewing, or have reviewed, the same manuscript for another journal (tell the editor; this does not always require you to decline).
If you cannot review, please say so promptly and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.
2. Confidentiality
- Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share it, discuss it or use its content before publication.
- Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative AI tool, translation service or any other external platform.
- Do not contact the authors directly.
- If you wish to involve a colleague or student in the review, ask the editor first and name them in your report.
3. What to assess
| Criterion | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the manuscript fall within the Journal's scope and interest its readers? |
| Originality | What does it add to existing knowledge? Is the contribution stated clearly? |
| Research question | Is the problem clear, significant and well defined? |
| Methodology | Is the method suitable for the question and described in enough detail to evaluate? For empirical work, are the sample, instruments and analysis sound? For doctrinal work, are the sources authoritative and current? |
| Analysis and argument | Is the analysis rigorous and coherent? Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? Are counter-arguments considered? |
| Literature and sources | Does it engage with current, relevant scholarship and primary sources? Are important works missing? |
| References | Are citations accurate, complete and consistent? Do any look unverifiable or fabricated? |
| Ethics | Were ethics approval and consent obtained where needed? Is personal data protected? |
| Presentation | Is the writing clear and the structure logical? Are tables and figures necessary and clear? |
4. Writing the report
Comments to the author (shared with the author, without your identity):
- a short summary of the manuscript's argument and contribution, in two or three sentences, to show the author how you understood it;
- the principal strengths of the manuscript;
- the major issues, numbered, each with a clear explanation and, where possible, a suggestion for how to address it;
- minor issues, such as errors of fact, citation or expression, numbered and with page or paragraph references.
Confidential comments to the editor (not shared with the author): your recommendation and the reasons for it; any concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity or ethics; and any other matter the editor should know. Please do not state your recommendation in the comments to the author, as the editor's decision may differ.
5. Tone
Write as you would wish to be reviewed. Be specific, constructive and respectful. Criticise the work, not the author, and avoid sarcasm and personal remarks. Where the language of a manuscript is weak, comment on clarity rather than on the author's proficiency.
6. Recommendations
| Recommendation | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is ready for publication, subject only to copy-editing. |
| Minor revision | The manuscript is sound but needs limited changes. |
| Major revision | The manuscript has merit but needs substantial changes and a further review. |
| Reject | The manuscript has fundamental problems that revision cannot fix, or falls outside the Journal's scope. |
7. Citation requests
Ask the author to cite your own work only where it is genuinely necessary to the manuscript. Requests made to increase a reviewer's citations are a breach of publication ethics.
8. Ethical concerns
If you suspect plagiarism, fabrication, duplicate publication, an undisclosed conflict of interest or any other misconduct, tell the editor in your confidential comments, with whatever evidence you have. Do not investigate further yourself or contact anyone else about it.
9. Recognition
With your consent, the Journal may name you in an annual acknowledgement of reviewers. You may record your reviewing activity on ORCID or similar services without disclosing the manuscript.
10. Join the reviewer panel
CIJFMR welcomes reviewers from law and legal studies, the social sciences, the humanities, and management and business studies, and from interdisciplinary fields. Faculty members and researchers holding a doctoral degree may apply, as may researchers and practitioners with at least a postgraduate degree and a record of peer-reviewed publication or substantial professional expertise in the field.
How to apply: write to editor@cijfmr.com with the subject line "Reviewer application", attaching a short CV (no more than two pages); your ORCID iD and, if available, a link to your institutional or Google Scholar profile; your areas of expertise, described as specifically as possible (for example, "competition law and digital markets" rather than "law"); and the methods in which you are experienced (for example, doctrinal, comparative, survey, econometric or qualitative). The editorial office replies within 15 working days. Joining the panel does not oblige you to accept any particular invitation.