Manuscripts submitted for publication in JEIM are subjected to double blind peer-review. It maintains the identity of the reviewers, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.

Reviewers' responsibilities are as follows: 

  • The manuscripts received by the reviewers should be treated in confidentally. 

  • The reviewers are bound to treat information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors as privileged information and keep them confidential

  • In evaluating the submitted manuscripts, the reviewers and the editors should limit themselves only to the intellectual and scientific content. 

  • If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript; should clearly inform the Editorial Team and ask for excuse. 

  • Reviewers shall notify the Editorial Team immediately of any misconduct on the part of any author(s). 

  • The reviewer should never use unpublished material on own advantage.

  • The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the Editorial Team and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript. 

  • Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.Reviewer’s views about the manuscripts are regarded highly by the Editorial Board, since the decision about whether to accept or reject will essentially be given accordingly. 

Reviewer is expected to comment evidently about the contribution of article to the related field, and also explain clearly why the article should be accepted or rejected. At the end of review process, reviewer might suggest to:

  • Accept unconditionally.

  • Accept subject to Minor revisions (The revised manuscript will be subject to re-review). 

  • Accept subject to Minor revisions (Referee re-review is not necessary).   

  • Accept subject to Major revisions (The revised manuscript will be subject to re-review).

  • Reject

When the suggestion is either last three suggest, reviewer should clearly explain why.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscript should be reviewed by the following criteria: 


The title reflects the content properly.


The purpose, design and nature of the study are well expressed in the Abstract.


Sample, data collection tools, data analysis and major findings are summarized in the Abstract.


The review of the literature is up-to-date, comprehensive and addresses the need for the manuscript.


The purpose of the study is clearly stated, the gap in the literature is well-established, and research questions are generated accordingly.


The research design is clearly described and appropriate for the purpose of the study.


The Sample, their characteristics and their selection methods are described in detail and justified.


The context of the study is elaborated to provide in-depth understanding about the setting.


The purpose, content and usage of data collection tools are explained and justified.


Data collection and analysis procedures are clearly explained with a reference to the role and competency of the researcher(s).


The validity and reliability processes in data collection and analyses are described sufficiently.


Findings respond to the purpose of the study, and are presented systematically.


Findings are supported with sufficient and relevant quotations, examples, tables and diagrams.


Findings are discussed with a reference to relevant and recent literature.


Theoretical implications and practical significance of the study are discussed.


Implications for further implementations, suggestions for further research, and limitations of the current study are provided.