Business Management Dynamics

Double Blind Peer Reviewed - Open Access Journal

Home  |   Contact Us

 

ISSN: 2047-7031

       reviewer guidelines

 

The basic aim of Business Management Dynamics (BMD) is to provide all the tools to make business dynamic. Considering the basic aims of journal we target to give best in shape of publication from BMD platform. In order to realize this dream reviewer’s support is indispensible. BMD hopes that you, being reviewer, will work at your best to evaluate the manuscripts submitted, which in return will enhance overall quality of our journal.
Objectivity of the Reviews
In order to ensure that quality standards are maintained at our journal, you are requested to see that the reviews are fair and free from biasness. Being a reviewer you should avoid self-perception or views about some theory or view being tested or investigated in the study.
Time frame
We believe in fast publication process and in order to ensure this is achieved it is aimed that we will be back with authors with their review report within seven (07) days. You are requested that you will review the manuscripts in stipulated time.
Confidentiality matters
BMD works with the aim that all the reviews made would be double blind peered reviewed. So manuscripts submitted should be kept in complete confidentiality. You are requested to not to disclose anyone about the manuscript submitted for review.
Inability to review
If being a review you feel like that the manuscript is not in the scope of your specialty you are requested to send it back to us within 48 hours of submission, so that we may send it to some suitable reviewer.
Insuring quality in review
Real job of reviewer is to suggest journal the suitability of manuscript for publication. This job requires some quality standards to be met. Your comments are view will be an image of our journal, so you are requested to be courteous while making comments. Be a critic in review but it should be constructive critics. In addition, be specific while making comments on every portion of the manuscript. Reviewers should focus on following points:
·    Contribution of study in existing literature
·    Novelty of ideas and thoughts
·    Logical relation among thoughts and research process
·    Clarity of the presentation
·    Use of current theories for study
·    Cohesiveness
·    Conciseness
·    Suitability of the article for this journal
·    Theme of manuscript matches with theme of our journal
·    Use an application of latest theories, and if old one is used its proper justification
 
While looking at the manuscript is sure that it meets the standards required for a good research article. You can ask various questions to make a good review:
·    Does the manuscript offers some creative ideas, thoughts, or directions that might flourish business world in future.
·    The ideas presented in the manuscript are interested enough to be accepted.  
·    Does the abstract portion meets the minimum requirements of an abstract
·    Does introduction portion makes a sense about the research/research question/problem statement
·    Does literature suffice the study/variables and their relations
·    Does hypotheses stem from literature and are supported by theoretical framework
·    Does the methodology applied suitable enough to test the hypothesis and relationships of variables.  
·    Are the findings consistent with the methodology and hypotheses?  
·    Does conclusion of the study is based on findings and shows the contribution of present study and which gap it has covered.  
·    Are references up to date and include latest theories and their description
·    Are limitations and gaps identified in research?  
·    Statistical tests and techniques applied are suitable for study
·    Is the submitted work overlapping with other published and in-press articles?

>