For Reviewers

In order to ensure a high standard of publication, all papers submitted to the Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research will undergo peer review prior to acceptance for publication. The review process ensures that papers are original, substantial, new, and presented effectively.

All submissions should be evaluated objectively, regardless of the writers' affiliation, color, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Your review should be neutral, please avoid making offensive comments about the work or its authors.

Confidentiality

Please do not disclose any information obtained during the peer-review process, or use the unpublished materials in your research without the written consent of the Author as the paper should be treated as confidential.

Conflict of Interest

You should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and consult with the journal if you are unsure whether or not something constitutes a relevant interest.

Review Criteria

The following criteria must be evaluated by reviewers when evaluating submitted articles. The criteria include questions on research significance, methods, the availability of the data, proper reference, presentation, and key points.

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper？ Does the data show adequate rationality?
5. Implications for research, practice, and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice, and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? 
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, acronyms, etc.

Use of AI by Reviewers

Peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific publishing ecosystem, and we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity throughout this process. When researchers are invited to review a manuscript, they must treat it as a confidential document and ensure that all information contained within the manuscript remains strictly confidential.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part of them to AI tools, as this may affect the confidentiality of the manuscript, the authors’ rights, and data privacy requirements if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information.

Reviewers are responsible for providing their own scientific assessment and judgement of the manuscripts they review. AI tools should not replace reviewers’ critical thinking or independent evaluation, as they may produce inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and quality of their review reports.

If reviewers use AI tools during the preparation of their review reports, they should clearly disclose such use in the report. The disclosure should include the name of the AI tool and the specific purpose for which it was used. However, the use of AI tools for basic language corrections, such as spelling and grammar checks, does not require disclosure.