Expertise
Can you reliably assess the principal subject or method? Disclose when your expertise covers only part of a multidisciplinary work.
Home / For Reviewers / Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Independent, confidential and constructive assessment that helps editors decide and authors strengthen their work.
Scholarly service
Assess the work with care and independence.
Reviewers advise the editors. The final publication decision remains an editorial responsibility.
Every manuscript should be approached with confidentiality, intellectual fairness and professional respect.
Three questions before accepting
Time
Can you complete a careful report within the requested period? Decline promptly or request an extension before accepting.
Independence
Could a financial, personal, supervisory, collaborative, institutional or competitive relationship affect judgement?
When uncertain about a possible conflict, disclose it to the editor rather than privately deciding it is insignificant.
Protect confidential manuscripts and blind identities
- Do not forward or discuss an unpublished manuscript
- Do not use unpublished ideas, findings or material for personal advantage
- Do not contact the authors directly
- Do not attempt to identify authors through searches or citation patterns
- Obtain editorial permission before involving a colleague or trainee
- Record any approved additional contributor to the review
AI and external tools: confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to public generative AI systems or another service that could expose unpublished research, personal information or intellectual property. Reviewers remain personally responsible for every report.
What a rigorous review should assess
Originality
Does the manuscript contribute evidence, argument, interpretation, theory, synthesis or application of genuine scholarly value?
Scope and question
Is the principal question clear, focused and relevant to CIJFMR’s disciplinary or interdisciplinary remit?
Literature and context
Does the work engage relevant scholarship and address omissions that materially affect the argument?
Methodology
Are the design, sources, sampling, analysis, reliability, limitations and research question appropriately aligned?
Results and reasoning
Do the evidence and analysis support the conclusions without confusing demonstration, interpretation and speculation?
Ethics and presentation
Are integrity concerns addressed, and is the manuscript organised, precise, readable and appropriately documented?
Discipline-sensitive assessment
Doctrinal legal work may require careful treatment of authorities, precedent and legal reasoning. Humanities work may turn on interpretation, context and conceptual originality. Empirical social-science and management work may require scrutiny of theory, design, sampling, analysis, validity and limitations.
Write for both the editor and the author
Constructive assessment
- Briefly summarise the question, approach and apparent contribution
- Number major comments affecting validity, method, argument or ethics
- Separate minor corrections and localised clarity issues
- Direct criticism at the work, never the person
Confidential context
- Disclose conflicts or limitations in competence
- Report suspected misconduct or ethical concerns
- Explain considerations unsuitable for author-facing comments
- Avoid contradicting the public report without explanation
Reviewers are not required to act as copyeditors. Specific, prioritised scholarly guidance is more useful than a long list of stylistic preferences.
Match the recommendation to the report
Accept
Suitable for publication without substantive change.
Minor revision
Fundamentally suitable, with limited correction or clarification required.
Major revision
Substantial changes are required, but the work retains meaningful publication potential.
Reject
Problems cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, the contribution is insufficient or the work is outside scope.
A rejection recommendation should explain the central scholarly reasons. A positive recommendation should not conceal major unresolved criticisms.
Report concerns, do not investigate authors
If plagiarism, fabrication, duplicate publication, manipulated evidence, undisclosed conflicts, authorship problems or another serious issue is suspected:
01
Protect
Continue to preserve manuscript confidentiality.
02
Document
Describe the concern and identify relevant passages or evidence.
03
Report
Send the concern privately to the responsible editor.
04
Stop
Do not contact the author, institution or third parties independently.
Citation requests must be academically necessary. Reviewers must not coerce citation of their own publications, the Journal or unrelated work.
Revisions, recognition and joining the community
A revised manuscript may be returned to determine whether earlier concerns were addressed, whether new problems were introduced and whether the author provides a defensible explanation for suggestions not adopted.
Any reviewer-recognition programme must preserve manuscript confidentiality. Public acknowledgement must not reveal which reviewer assessed a particular article without explicit authority under the applicable review model.
Editorial contacteditor@cijfmr.com
Reviewer applicationFormal route pending configuration
Standard deadlineSpecified per invitation
AppointmentSubject to editorial selection
Prospective reviewers may be asked for their affiliation, position, expertise, keywords, publication profile, ORCID iD, professional email, curriculum vitae and conflict information. Registration does not guarantee assignment.
Reviewer standards
Independent judgement, expressed with professional respect.
Protect confidentiality, disclose conflicts, assess evidence rather than authors and report integrity concerns through the verified editorial channel.