Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Sustainable Finance and Business Innovation (JSFBI) relies on the expertise, integrity, and professionalism of its reviewers to maintain high scholarly standards. The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure objectivity and fairness.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to contribute to the editorial decision-making process by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they possess appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. If a reviewer feels that the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise, or if they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, they should promptly inform the editorial office and may suggest alternative qualified reviewers to the editorial office where appropriate.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

·   Relevance to the aims and scope of JSFBI

·   Originality and contribution to academic knowledge

·   Theoretical grounding and conceptual clarity

·   Methodological rigor and appropriateness of research design

·   Quality, validity, and transparency of data and analysis

·   Coherence of structure and clarity of presentation

·   Appropriateness of interpretation and discussion of results

·   Strength and relevance of conclusions and implications

·   Adequacy and accuracy of references. 

 

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal advantage. Reviewers are expected to adhere to recognised ethical standards in scholarly publishing and to follow relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct, should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

4. Constructive and Objective Feedback

Reviews should be written in a respectful and professional manner. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based comments that identify both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and offer actionable suggestions for improvement.

Review reports should be sufficiently detailed to assist editors in making informed decisions and to help authors enhance the quality of their work.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation, including financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors or related organisations. Where a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation to review.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within a reasonable timeframe agreed upon with the editorial office. If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should notify the editorial office as early as possible.

 7. Review Recommendations

Reviewers are invited to provide one of the following recommendations:

·     Accept

·     Minor revision

·     Major revision

·     Reject

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial policies.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential content into generative artificial intelligence tools or external platforms. Limited use of such tools for language clarity is permitted only when confidentiality and data protection are fully ensured.

9. Reviewer Recognition

JSFBI values the contribution of its reviewers. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless explicit consent is provided for public acknowledgement in accordance with the journal’s policies.