Reviewer Guidelines

The International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility and Management  is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, confidential, and constructive peer-review process. Reviewers play an important role in ensuring the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of published research.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Assess the manuscript according to its academic quality and relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Provide clear, constructive, and respectful comments.
  • Identify significant strengths and weaknesses.
  • Support their recommendations with appropriate reasoning and evidence.
  • Notify the editor of any concerns regarding research or publication ethics.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not:

  • Share the manuscript or review materials with others without editorial permission.
  • Discuss unpublished manuscript content with third parties.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any personal, professional, financial, academic, or other conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline the assignment when they cannot provide an independent evaluation.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to consider:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript provide a meaningful and original contribution?
  • Relevance: Is the topic appropriate for IJCSRM?
  • Research Objectives: Are the objectives clearly stated?
  • Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate and adequately explained?
  • Analysis: Are the results and analysis logically presented?
  • Discussion: Are the findings appropriately interpreted?
  • References: Are relevant and appropriate sources cited?
  • Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly organized and written?
  • Ethical Compliance: Does the research follow applicable ethical requirements?

5. Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, and constructive. Reviewers should explain identified problems and, where appropriate, suggest practical ways to improve the manuscript.

Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

6. Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

If a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate citation practices, or other ethical concerns, the reviewer should confidentially notify the editor and provide supporting information where possible.

7. Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editor.

8. Timely Review

Reviewers should complete reviews within the timeframe provided by the editorial office. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editor as soon as possible.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should exercise caution when using AI-assisted tools during peer review. Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their evaluations.

10. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers should not use information obtained through peer review to:

  • Advance their own research before publication.
  • Appropriate ideas or unpublished findings.
  • Contact authors regarding unpublished work without editorial authorization.
  • Influence the publication decision for personal or competitive reasons.