Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis Indonesia deeply appreciates the invaluable contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, validity, and high ethical standards of published research. To ensure a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process, reviewers are expected to adhere strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Prompt Response: Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they have the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can commit to completing the review within the agreed-upon timeframe, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Timeliness: If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to review the research, or knows that a timely review is impossible, they must notify the editor immediately and decline the invitation so alternative reviewers can be appointed, as mandated by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Protecting Unpublished Work: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not share, discuss, or disclose any information about the submission with anyone outside the editorial process, adhering strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Prohibition of AI Uploads: Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, in whole or in part, into external AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs), as doing so compromises confidentiality and breaches intellectual property rights, in direct violation of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Use of Data: Reviewers must not use unpublished material, data, or ideas disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research or personal advantage without the explicit written consent of the author, per COPE's standards for reviewer conduct and confidentiality.

Impartial Evaluation: Reviewers must conduct their evaluation objectively, ensuring that their judgments are well-reasoned and supported by clear arguments without personal criticism or hostility toward the authors, as outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Constructive Critique: Reviewers should assist authors in improving the quality of their paper by providing constructive, professional, and clear feedback regarding methodology, data interpretation, and literature framing, fulfilling the core advisory duties specified under the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Declining Biased Reviews: Reviewers must immediately decline to review a manuscript if they have any competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper, in strict accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Transparent Disclosures: Any potential financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that could be perceived as biasing the review must be fully disclosed to the editor prior to submitting the assessment report, conforming to COPE's mandate on Competing Interests.

Detecting Misconduct: Reviewers must remain vigilant for potential ethical issues in the manuscript, such as substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, data falsification or fabrication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and must immediately report any suspicions to the editor, following the COPE Flowcharts and guidelines for identifying misconduct.