About the Journal

Peer Review Process

Dear reviewers of the Ethiopian Journal of Business and Social Sciences, while reviewing manuscripts, please consider the following issues:

  1. 1. The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer handles critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their manuscript. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

1.1. Before Reviewing

Please consider:

  • Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
    If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternate reviewer.
  • Do you have time to review the paper? Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but can no longer finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest? While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please contact the journal Editor in chief.
  1. 2. The Review

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

  • Content Quality and Originality, Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? To determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
  • Organization and Clarity

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.

Materials and Methods: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? Has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results and Discussions: This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be laid out in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should be included in this section.  Are the claims in this section supported by the results, Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories?

Conclusion: Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? And does the conclusion arise from the finding? The conclusion should not introduce new things beyond the findings of the study.

Tables, Figures, and Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are they conform to Journals Guidelines for writing a table, figure, or image?

Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

  1. 3.  Specific Criteria to Review an Article for Publication on EJBSS

Dear Reviewer(s), use the following Article assessment criteria to review the journal article:.

Reviewer Recommendation term 

Please state your recommendation here in the following recommendation terminology :

  1. Accepted
  2. Accepted with Minor Modification
  3. Accepted with Major Modification
  4. Rejected

Comments to the editor

1. Assessment of a Manuscript

For each question, please use the following scale to answer (place an x in the space provided, _x_): 
7= Excellent/Very Good
6 =Good     
5= Sound - some work required
4 = Marginal - needs significant work
3 = Has some value
2 = Of little value
1 = Of no value     
0 = No opinion or not applicable     

No

Questions or sentences for judgments

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

Does the paper fit with the scope of the journal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Is the submission in Standard English /Amharic to aid the understanding of the reader? For non-native speakers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Is the submission original?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

Has the manuscript of any importance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

Awareness of the wider literature about the issue?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Does the research/conceptualization/review contribute to the literature?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

Is the research design/conceptualization appropriate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

Is the research/review rigorous as to the method or understanding of concepts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

Is the article well written?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

Do the conclusions flow from the research/conceptualization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

The overall value of the article?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

Do you feel this paper might best be described as 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an article (i.e. reports research findings or conceptualization)

 

a case study (applies well-known ideas in a new context, or is primarily descriptive)             

 

a research note (contribute by restating known research)

15

Additional comments:

________________________________________________________________________________

Comments to Author:

Please comment on each part of the journal article to show its strengths and weaknesses.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.