Article Review

1. Article Classification

(this value is used for classification rather than scoring purpose)

2. Manuscript Ratings

This section contains key review questions presented as a scale

Sufficiency of tag line ( is the tagline engaging and descriptive)

Needs substantial rewriting       Needs tuning       Satisfactory as is       Will sell the article!       Not Provided      

Adequacy of keywords ( Will the keywords adequately aid in search )

Too few or too general       Additional keywords would be useful       Satisfactory as is       Will make the article easy to find!       Not Provided      

Quality of executive summary Does the executive summary capture the essence of the article and make the potential reader want to dig deeper

Does not convey the sense of the article, or is too difficult to understand       Should be tuned further to convey the message and engage the potential reader       Satisfactory as is       Will ensure that the potential reader becomes an actual reader!       Not Provided      

Summary: Is the writing itself of sufficient quality for publication? Pacifically we are interested in grammar spelling and follow

No       Barely       With some improvement       Yes      

Overall: How would you recommend disposing of this manuscript?

To avoid multiple rounds of back and forth revisions and resubmission information since typically either rejects or accepts( subject to specific revision )manuscripts after the first round of reviewers thus revise and resubmit is not an option that we typically over

Reject       Reject, but encourage authors to consider the reviewer comments and, if they can be incorporated into a new paper, consider a resubmission       Accept, subject to the specific recommendations made in the next section       Accept as-is, with encouragement to consider reviewer suggestions     

Qualitative Review

-Comment on the significance of the case being described

the purpose of this question is to let the author(s) know how you perceived importance of the research question

Comment on the degree to which the findings being examined are likely to be either novel or confusing to practicing managers

try to list 3 or more valuable or potentially valuable contributions of the manuscript. In considering these remember that the manuscript has already passed desk review and at least in the eyes of the editor in chief it must have some potential value we need the authors to know that we are examining their work with the goal of finding value

Comment on the degree to which the analysis or theory being presented offers a convincing explanation for the findings

this involves the assessing logical flow of the manuscript

Comment on the presentation of findings. Specifically, are they written in a manner likely to engage readers?

the mission is to present research in manner that is accessible to practicing managers . indicate if an over -abundance of academic Jargon is used.

Comment on the reviewer appendix

what changes , if any could be made to their viewer I've been things to order the ministrat the rigor of the research

In what broad ways could the manuscript be improved?

Focus on big picture issues and make sure that suggestions are actionable so that the editor can use them when responding to the authors.

suggestions such as,, too long,, ,,not well organized,, or this is not research are generally not helpful.

Instead, try to be specific in how any problem can be remedied. for example ,,to reduce the length of the manuscript you could focus the literature review more directly on the research topic omitting (some specific example ) or ,,the paper made follow better if the limitations section were not placed at the very end of the paper the last thing the reader sees,, and so forth

Specific items that can be improved or corrected (include line numbers where possible

in this section you can identify examples of bad wording spelling error messing references grammatical inconsistencies and other specific defect that can readily be addressed prior to resubmission