For Reviewers

Informations for Reviewers

Transparency & Ethics

The Journal of Positive Management is dedicated to publishing articles with the greatest level of integrity.

The journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows its standards for dealing with acts of misconduct, promising to investigate all allegations in order to maintain research integrity.

To verify manuscripts, the journal may apply plagiarism detection tools. The COPE plagiarism standards shall be followed if plagiarism is discovered.

This journal publishes peer-reviewed material and has a Conflict of Interest policy in place.

Although you are not accountable for finding ethical concerns in submissions as a reviewer, you are typically the best situated to spot examples of fraud, plagiarism, or probable defamation/libel due to your knowledge and skill. If you have reasonable cause to believe there has been intentional or unintentional ethical violation, please inform the publisher or editor in your review.

Reviewer guidelines

With a wide range of tasks, our reviewers play a vital part in the publication process. To assist you at each level of the process, we've prepared some reviewer guidelines.

You'll find helpful hints and advice on all parts of peer review here.

Fully declare any possible conflict of interest; this will not necessarily disqualify you, but it will assist the editorial staff in making an objective decision.

In the Open Journal System you will be given a series of comprehensive questions in order to urge you to think about every aspect of the text. There are highlighted some areas for consideration:

A. Research problem assessment: the compliance of the title with the content, the research problem and the aim of the paper, the originality/ innovation of the paper in comparison with previous research or applications, its ongoing pertinence

There are a few points to consider:

• Is there anything fresh and intriguing in the article? • Is it a contribution to the field of knowledge? • Is the research question significant? • How does the manuscript stack up against the field's most referenced or downloaded papers? • Does it make sense and highlight the importance of the research? • Does the title accurately describe the contents of the manuscript?

These questions may be answered with the aid of tools like Web of Science or Scopus. Indicate in your review any pertinent references to the editor if the study has already been covered.

B. Research method assessment: the structure of the paper, applied research methods, the adequacy of the literature to the topic and its relevance.

There are several points to consider:

• Is this clear in expressing the research topic and describing what the author sought to achieve? • Is there a synopsis of the existing research literature supplied by the author to provide context? • Is it apparent how this is being questioned or improved? • Is the author providing a clear explanation of how the data was gathered? • Is the design appropriate for responding to the question? • Is there a description of the processes used in the article? • Are the procedures discussed in detail if they are new? • Is there enough information available for you to repeat the study? • Was the sampling done correctly? • Have the materials and equipment been appropriately described? • Is it apparent what kind of data was collected in the study, and has the author described measures precisely? Please check also statistics, because some errors are common.

C. Content assessment: achieving the aim of the paper, the originality of presented research results, the value of research for science and its practical applicability including the identification of possible areas for implementation, discussion of the results/theses of the paper.

The author should discuss their results in this section. The outcomes should be presented in a clear and concise manner. You should reflect about the author's analyses' merits and applicability. The statements in this part should be fair and backed up by data.

There are some points to consider:

• Are the results in line with the author's expectations? • Do the conclusions sufficiently connect the other parts of the paper? • Is the article consistent with or contradictory to earlier theories and research results? • Is the author able to describe how the research has contributed to the body of knowledge?

The author(s) should detail the characterization of further research directions on the issues taken up in the manuscript. The design or methodological aspects of the study that affected or influenced how the findings were applied or interpreted constitute the study's limitations. They are the limitations on the generalizability and applicability of findings as a result of the study's design choices and/or the procedures employed to determine internal and external validity.

D. Formal structure assessment: the title of the paper, summary, correct presentation of the content, compliance with editorial requirements, compliance with the objectives and scope of the Journal of Positive Management

Please review the contents and, if feasible, give ideas for improvement where these are included:

• Do the figures and tables provide information to the reader? • Are they a significant component of the plot? Do the figures correctly represent the data? • Are they provided in a consistent manner (for example, in the same format throughout)? • What is the language and quality of communication? • Is the length of abstract appropriate? • Does it include the required elements (purpose, design / methodology, findings, implications / limitations, originality / value of the manuscript)? • Is the abstract a clear approximation of the article's content?