Reviewer information
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review at NEJSR should provide editors with an informed assessment and authors with clear, respectful, actionable scholarly feedback.
Before accepting
Assess Fit Before You Accept
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have suitable expertise, can meet the requested timeframe, and do not have a conflict that would compromise or reasonably call into question an independent assessment.
Review focus
Evaluate the Evidence Synthesis
A review should focus on the manuscript's contribution and the quality of the evidence-synthesis process rather than on stylistic preference.
- Fit with the journal's scope
- Clarity and significance of the review question
- Appropriateness and transparency of the review method
- Search and eligibility logic
- Screening and evidence-selection procedures
- Quality or risk-of-bias appraisal when applicable
- Appropriateness of the synthesis method
- Alignment between evidence and conclusions
- Limitations and uncertainty
- Contribution to management scholarship or practice
Feedback
Make the Review Constructive
Reviewer comments should identify specific strengths, weaknesses, and revision needs. Comments should explain why a concern matters and distinguish major issues from minor points.
Personal criticism, dismissive language, unsupported demands, and requests designed primarily to increase citations to a reviewer's own work are not appropriate review practices.
Confidentiality
Protect Unpublished Manuscript Information
Reviewers should treat manuscripts and associated review materials as confidential and should not distribute, disclose, or use unpublished material outside the authorized review process.
AI policy linkage
The journal's final artificial intelligence policy will state whether and under what conditions reviewers may use AI tools during review. Until that policy is approved, reviewers should not place confidential manuscript content into external AI systems.
Conflicts of interest
Disclose Conflicts Promptly
A reviewer who identifies a financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationship that may affect impartial review should disclose the issue to the editor before proceeding.
Timeliness
Accept Assignments Selectively
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can complete the work within the requested period. A reviewer who later encounters a material delay should contact the editor promptly rather than allow the review to remain inactive.
Review timetable
Reviewer invitations normally request a response within seven days. Reviewers who accept an assignment normally receive twenty-one days to complete the review.
External guidance
Peer-Review Ethics
NEJSR plans to align its reviewer standards with established scholarly publishing ethics while retaining journal-specific procedures for its editorial workflow.