Reviewer Guidelines

J-SUSTAIN: Journal of Sustainable Business and Global Transition relies on the expertise of reviewers to maintain the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations in accordance with internationally recognized standards in scholarly publishing.

1. Professional Responsibility

Reviewers contribute to the editorial decision-making process by assessing the academic quality and scientific merit of submitted manuscripts. Reviews must be conducted fairly, objectively, and without personal bias. Comments should focus on improving the manuscript while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

2. Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose any information related to the manuscript.

All submitted manuscripts, data, and supplementary materials must be treated as strictly confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage. Unpublished materials must not be cited or used prior to formal publication.

3. Use of Generative AI Tools

To protect confidentiality and ensure the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of the submission into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar systems).

Review reports must be prepared independently based on the reviewer’s own academic judgment.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide a comprehensive and structured evaluation of the manuscript, considering the following aspects:

  • Originality and Theoretical Contribution
    The extent to which the manuscript contributes meaningfully to existing knowledge, including the development or extension of theoretical perspectives.
  • Methodological Rigor
    The appropriateness and robustness of the research design, data collection, and analytical methods.
  • Data Integrity and Transparency
    The validity and reliability of the analysis, clarity of data reporting, and—where applicable—the availability of data to support reproducibility.
  • Relevance to the Journal Scope
    The degree to which the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus on sustainable business and global transition.
  • Clarity and Structure
    The organization, coherence, and quality of academic writing, including the logical flow of arguments.
  • Implications
    The contribution of the study to theory, practice, or policy, and its relevance to stakeholders and broader contexts.

5. Ethical Conduct and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment, including financial, institutional, or personal relationships.

If any form of research misconduct is suspected (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication), reviewers should promptly inform the editorial team.

6. Recommendation Categories

Based on their evaluation, reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
    The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and requires no further revision.
  • Minor Revision
    The manuscript is generally sound but requires limited revisions.
  • Major Revision
    Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Reject
    The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or lacks sufficient contribution.

All recommendations must be supported by clear and well-reasoned comments.

7. Timeliness and Review Quality

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the requested timeframe (typically 14 days).

Feedback should be:

  • Specific and actionable
  • Constructive and professional
  • Focused on improving the manuscript

Clear and well-structured feedback is essential to support authors during the revision process.