JIBS follows a double-blind review process, whereby reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers. For more information on reviewer expectations and what should be included in your developmental review, please see the JIBS Guidelines for Reviewers.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions based on the following scalar evaluation section. These evaluation questions are shared here as they may be helpful for prospective authors in writing or positioning their articles; for submitted papers these reviewer ratings are confidential, shared only with the JIBS Area Editor and not the author(s) of the submission.
JIBS reviewer form scalar evaluation
Overall Contribution:
The manuscript should contain insightful and influential ideas on international business (that is, cutting-edge and breaks new ground). The ideas and the conclusions (theoretical or empirical) offer new insight and knowledge about international business. International business scholars should want to read and cite this paper.
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Literature Review:
The manuscript should cite the appropriate and most up-to-date international business literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic. The paper should contain an appropriate number of references, neither excessive nor under referencing.
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Theory Development:
The paper should make a new and meaningful contribution to the international business literature in terms of theory building. The study should inform or improve our understanding of prior theory. Propositions or hypotheses should be logical and clear, with major concepts clearly defined.
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Methods – Quantitative:
(For quantitative pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for purely qualitative and conceptual pieces.) The sample, design, measures, and analyses provide convincing evidence regarding internal validity. Statistical procedures are used appropriately and results are reported transparently and comprehensively (including appropriate descriptive statistics, collinearity diagnostics, effect sizes, etc.), so that readers are fully aware of all steps and procedures – as well as results – and would be able to conduct a similar study themselves if so desired. Major assumptions of the statistical techniques are reasonably well met (i.e., no major violations, and minor violations acknowledged and explained). When applicable, robustness analyses provide additional evidence in support of substantive results and conclusions, and rule out alternative explanations. The limitations of the study are acknowledged.
- Not applicable
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Methods – Qualitative:
(For qualitative pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for purely quantitative and conceptual pieces.) The choice of research design is appropriate in light of the research question and onto-epistemological stance of the author(s). The selection of the research site(s) and study participants is justified in a convincing way. Sufficient detail is provided on the data sources and collection methods to judge the quality of the evidence. The steps that were taken in data analysis are reported transparently and comprehensively, showing how the study’s theoretical conclusions were derived. The credibility, transferability, or other quality criteria appropriate to the study, are addressed. The limitations of the study are acknowledged.
- Not applicable
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Methodological Familiarity:
As an interdisciplinary and methodologically pluralist journal, JIBS receives manuscripts that employ a broad range of empirical methodologies. Reviewers can render useful assessments of manuscripts even in cases where they are not experts in the employed methodology. However, for editorial decision-making, it is important to understand the perspective represented by each reviewer. Please evaluate your familiarity with the empirical methodology employed in this manuscript.
- Not applicable
- Not at all familiar
- Quite unfamiliar
- Somewhat unfamiliar
- Somewhat familiar
- Quite familiar
- Extremely familiar
Integration:
(For empirical pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for conceptual pieces) The empirical work should provide a good test of the theory and hypotheses. There should be sufficient empirical grounds to build new theory. The empirical method(s) chosen – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods – should be appropriate for the paper’s research question and theory development or testing.
- Not applicable
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Writing and Presentation:
The presentation style should be appropriate for a top-level journal of business. The writing style is engaging. Figures and tables should be well-labelled (avoid acronyms) and clearly explained. The paper is concisely written, void of unnecessary repetition and extraneous writing. The paper is enjoyable to read.
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Societal Relevance:
The ideas and findings of this study have the potential to inform practice and multinational firm strategies for international business. The ideas can potentially advance or contribute to the betterment of societies, locally or globally, through influencing or enabling positive IB practices.
- Not applicable
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
Importance of Topic to Betterment of Society:
Is the subject matter or research question under consideration of a timely and topical nature that merits research attention in today’s international business environment? Does the paper address important issues and problems in society that are particularly relevant for international business?
- Not applicable: The paper does not claim to make any direct or explicit contribution to the betterment of society
- Very poor
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
- Outstanding
