Review guidelines

Smart International Management Journal (SIMJ) is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, transparent, and constructive peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide constructive comments, and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript according to the following criteria.

1. Title

The title should accurately and clearly represent the subject, scope, and main focus of the manuscript. It should be concise, informative, and free from unnecessary ambiguity.

Reviewers should suggest an alternative title when the existing title does not adequately reflect the content of the manuscript.

2. Abstract

The abstract should provide a concise and accurate summary of the study, including, where applicable:

  • Research background or problem;

  • Purpose or objective;

  • Methods or research approach;

  • Main findings; and

  • Principal conclusions and implications.

The abstract should be consistent with the content of the full manuscript and should not contain unsupported claims or information that is not presented in the article.

3. Literature Review and References

The manuscript should demonstrate adequate engagement with relevant and credible scholarly literature.

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Important and relevant previous studies have been appropriately cited;

  • Citations support the statements for which they are provided;

  • The literature review establishes the research context and identifies the research gap;

  • The manuscript clearly demonstrates its originality or contribution; and

  • References are relevant, sufficiently current, and appropriate to the subject.

Authors should give proper credit to the work of other researchers. Excessive, irrelevant, or inappropriate citations should be avoided.

4. Research Objectives and Questions

The research objectives, questions, hypotheses, or propositions should be clearly stated and consistent with the research problem.

Reviewers should assess whether the study adequately addresses its stated objectives and whether the research questions or hypotheses are appropriately examined.

5. Methodology

The research methodology should be appropriate for addressing the research objectives and sufficiently described to allow readers to understand and, where applicable, reproduce the research.

Reviewers should consider:

  • Research design;

  • Population, sample, or data sources;

  • Data collection procedures;

  • Variables and measurement instruments;

  • Analytical methods;

  • Statistical procedures where applicable; and

  • Relevant software, tools, models, or frameworks.

For research involving human participants or other ethically sensitive subjects, reviewers should consider whether appropriate ethical considerations or approvals have been reported.

6. Clarity and Presentation

The manuscript should present its methods, findings, and interpretations clearly, concisely, and logically.

Reviewers should identify unclear statements, unsupported claims, excessive terminology, or sections that require clarification.

7. Organization and Logical Flow

The manuscript should have a coherent structure and logical progression of ideas.

The relationship between the research problem, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion should be clear and consistent.

8. Originality and Duplication

The manuscript should provide an original contribution to the relevant field.

Reviewers should consider whether:

  • The manuscript contains substantial duplication of previously published material;

  • The findings or discussion unnecessarily repeat existing publications;

  • Tables or figures unnecessarily duplicate information presented in the text; and

  • The manuscript can be made more concise without compromising its scientific contribution.

Suspected plagiarism or substantial duplication should be reported confidentially to the Editor rather than directly accused in the review comments to the authors.

9. Data Analysis and Calculations

Where applicable, reviewers should assess whether the data analysis, calculations, statistical procedures, models, or interpretations are appropriate and logically supported.

Reviewers may verify selected calculations or analytical procedures when necessary to assess the reliability of the findings.

10. Tables and Figures

Tables and figures should contribute meaningfully to the manuscript.

Reviewers should verify that:

  • All tables and figures are referred to in the text;

  • The information presented is consistent with the text;

  • Data are accurately presented;

  • Tables and figures are appropriately numbered;

  • Titles and captions are clear and informative; and

  • Units, labels, symbols, and terminology are used consistently.

11. Results

The results should be presented clearly and objectively and should directly address the research objectives or questions.

Reviewers should assess whether the findings are adequately supported by the data and whether the analysis is appropriate for the research design.

12. Discussion

The Discussion should interpret the findings in relation to the research objectives and relevant previous studies.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors:

  • Explain the significance of the findings;

  • Relate the findings to existing literature;

  • Identify similarities or differences with previous research;

  • Discuss theoretical and practical implications;

  • Acknowledge relevant limitations; and

  • Avoid conclusions that go beyond the evidence.

13. Interpretation and Claims

Authors should clearly distinguish between evidence-based findings, interpretation, assumptions, and speculation.

Reviewers should identify conclusions or claims that are not sufficiently supported by the data or methodology.

14. Conclusion

The conclusion should be concise, clear, and directly supported by the results and discussion.

It should address the research objectives or questions and should not introduce substantial new information or unsupported claims.

15. References

References should be relevant, accurate, and appropriately cited.

Reviewers should check, where possible, whether:

  • References cited in the text appear in the reference list;

  • References in the reference list are cited in the manuscript;

  • Important relevant literature has been considered;

  • References are sufficiently current for the subject and type of study; and

  • Citations are appropriate and not excessive or irrelevant.

There is no universal minimum number of references applicable to every manuscript. The adequacy of the reference list should be assessed according to the article type, research field, scope, and scholarly requirements of the manuscript.

16. Ethical and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should notify the Editor if they identify potential concerns regarding:

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate attribution;

  • Fabrication or falsification of data;

  • Duplicate or simultaneous publication;

  • Manipulation of images or research results;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Unethical research practices; or

  • Other forms of publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not investigate or contact third parties regarding suspected misconduct without authorization from the Editor.

17. Overall Assessment

Reviewers should provide a balanced assessment of the manuscript's:

  • Originality and contribution;

  • Scientific or scholarly quality;

  • Methodological rigor;

  • Validity and reliability of findings;

  • Relevance to the journal's scope;

  • Clarity and organization; and

  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the Editor:

  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial changes.

  • Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be considered for publication.

  • Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript should be evaluated again.

  • Reject – The manuscript has fundamental problems in its methodology, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, or scholarly contribution that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The final publication decision is the responsibility of the Editor and may take into account the reviewers' recommendations, editorial assessment, and other relevant considerations.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be shared, copied, used for personal advantage, or discussed with others without permission from the Editor.

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer should decline the review if personal, professional, financial, or other relationships could reasonably compromise their impartiality.

Reviews should be objective, respectful, and constructive. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate.

Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for their own research or benefit.

SIMJ is committed to ensuring that peer review is conducted fairly, independently, and in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics.