Reviewers

POLICY ON REVIEWERS – GULF JOURNAL OF ADVANCE BUSINESS RESEARCH

The Gulf Journal of Advance Business Research (GJABR) uses a double-blind peer review system for manuscripts across all business and management fields, including human resource management, marketing, operations, entrepreneurship, and finance.

Reviewer profile and eligibility

GJABR typically appoints reviewers who:

  • Possess advanced knowledge in business, management, or related disciplines aligned with the journal’s scope.
  • Have a track record of scholarly or applied work relevant to the subject under review (e.g., peer‑reviewed publications, professional practice, or policy-relevant research).
  • Can competently assess conceptual contribution, methodological rigor, and practical implications in business research.
  • Are free of academic, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the authors (including close collaboration, same institution, or recent co‑authorship, consistent with common reviewer standards).

Identification and invitation of reviewers

In line with the journal’s double‑blind process, editorial staff select reviewers whose expertise matches the topic and methods of the submission.

  • Reviewers are identified by the editors on the basis of subject fit, methodological familiarity, and evidence of competence in the area.
  • Invitations are issued directly by the editorial office; there is no automatic enrollment as a reviewer with submission or registration.
  • Each invitation is specific to a single manuscript and confined to that review cycle.
  • Invited reviewers are expected to accept or decline promptly and to indicate if the manuscript falls outside their expertise, consistent with prevailing peer‑review norms.

Core review tasks and expectations

For each assigned manuscript, reviewers are expected to:

  • Judge whether the paper offers a meaningful theoretical or practical contribution in its field, as required by GJABR’s publication criteria.
  • Comment on the novelty and relevance of the topic, the soundness of the research design, and the rigor of data analysis and interpretation.
  • Evaluate clarity of argumentation, organization, and adherence to scholarly standards (including appropriate referencing and presentation).
  • Provide constructive, structured feedback and a clear recommendation to support the editorial decision (accept, revise, or reject), in line with general reviewer guidelines used in scholarly journals.

Ethical conduct, documentation, and recognition

GJABR treats peer review as a confidential, ethical, and documented editorial activity.

  • Identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed under the double‑blind system to support impartial evaluation.
  • Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality, use the manuscript only for evaluation purposes, and disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest before or during review.
  • The journal records reviewer assignments and received reports as part of its editorial decision trail.
  • Where applicable, formal acknowledgments or documentation of service may be issued to reviewers after completion of a good‑faith, timely review, consistent with standard scholarly publishing practice.