Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship Research (IJOBER) relies on rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based assessments and clear recommendations to support editorial decision-making.

1) Role of Reviewers

• Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field of business and entrepreneurship research.
• Provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the manuscript, whether or not it is suitable for publication.
• Support editors by giving a recommendation based on evidence from the manuscript.

2) Confidentiality

• All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Do not share the manuscript, data, or any part of the submission with others without explicit permission from the editor.
• Do not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal advantage or research benefit.

3) Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, personal, or competitive).
• If a conflict exists that could compromise impartiality, reviewers should decline the review promptly.

4) Timeliness and Communication

• Please accept a review invitation only if you can complete it within the requested timeframe.
• If circumstances change, inform the editor as early as possible so an alternative reviewer can be appointed.
• Suggested timeline: initial response to invitation within 3–5 days; review completion within 2–4 weeks (or as specified in the IJOBER peer review workflow).

5) What to Evaluate (Core Criteria)

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the following aspects:

• Scope fit: Is the manuscript relevant to IJOBER (business, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial policy, social entrepreneurship, family business, sustainable entrepreneurship, and related fields)?
• Novelty and contribution: Does it add meaningful knowledge, theory, or practical implications?
• Research question/objectives: Are they clearly stated and logically developed?
• Literature and positioning: Is the prior work appropriately cited and synthesized (not only listed)? Are key references missing?
• Methodology: Is the design appropriate (sampling, instruments, procedure, validity/reliability, ethics where relevant)? Are analyses correct and sufficiently reported?
• Results: Are results presented clearly and consistently (tables/figures aligned with text)?
• Discussion: Are interpretations supported by results? Are limitations acknowledged? Are claims proportionate?
• Writing quality: Is the manuscript readable and well-structured? Is English/Indonesian academically appropriate?
• Ethics and integrity: Any concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or missing approvals?

6) How to Write a High-Quality Review

• Start with a brief summary of the manuscript (1–3 sentences) to show understanding.
• Provide major comments (substantive issues affecting validity, clarity, contribution) and minor comments (typos, formatting, small clarifications).
• Be specific: cite page/section/paragraph/table when possible and propose actionable fixes.
• Maintain a professional tone: critique the work, not the authors.

7) Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers should select one recommendation consistent with their assessment:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

If recommending rejection, please provide clear reasons (e.g., out of scope, fatal methodological flaws, insufficient novelty, ethical concerns).

8) Research Integrity Flags (Report Immediately)

Reviewers should confidentially alert the editor if they suspect:

• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap with other works;
• Duplicate submission/publication;
• Fabricated, falsified, or inconsistent data/results;
• Inappropriate image manipulation or misleading figures;
• Unethical research practices (missing approvals, consent issues, harmful procedures).

9) Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Reviewers

• Reviewers must not upload, paste, or share any part of a manuscript into AI tools or external services.
• Peer-review reports must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgment and must not be AI-generated.
• Basic local tools (e.g., spelling/grammar checks) are acceptable provided confidentiality is preserved.

10) Anonymity and Reviewer Identity

IJOBER follows its stated peer-review model as described in the journal’s Peer Review Process page (e.g., single-blind/double-blind). Reviewers should avoid self-identifying statements in the review text when anonymity is required.

11) Suggested Review Format (Template)

• Summary: (1–3 sentences)
• Major Comments: (bullet points, numbered)
• Minor Comments: (bullet points)
• Recommendation: (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject)

IJOBER appreciates reviewers’ contributions to maintaining high scholarly standards and supporting the advancement of research in business and entrepreneurship.