The Bangladesh Journal of Management Information Systems (BJMIS) relies on the expertise and dedication of reviewers to maintain its quality and integrity. These guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in conducting a thorough, fair, and constructive peer-review process.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the publication of high-quality research by:

1. Evaluating the originality, technical accuracy, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript.
2. Adopt a guiding and constructive approach rather than a rejecting mindset. Focus on helping the author improve their work by identifying areas for enhancement and offering actionable suggestions.
3. Providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
4. Assisting the editorial board in making informed decisions on manuscript acceptance or rejection.

Reviewer Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality

• Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Manuscripts should not be shared with or discussed with others unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

2. Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or institutions) and recuse themselves if necessary.

3. Timely Review

• Reviews should be completed within the specified time frame, typically 2-4 weeks. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

4. Constructive Feedback

• Provide clear, concise, and constructive feedback. Avoid personal remarks or unprofessional language.
• Highlight strengths, identify areas for improvement, and suggest specific changes or additional work if necessary.

5. Objectivity

• Ensure the review is conducted impartially and based solely on the manuscript's content, without any knowledge of or consideration for the author’s identity, background, or affiliations (blind review).
• Avoid personal biases or preferences and base recommendations on the manuscript’s scientific merit, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Key Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Relevance
   • Does the manuscript align with the journal's scope and topics, such as MIS, IT, supply chain management, business, industry, and trade-related issues?
2. Originality and Contribution
   • Is the research original, and does it contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
   • Are the findings significant and relevant?
3. Abstract
   • Does the abstract contain the topic, research gap, methodology, findings, and recommendations precisely and clearly, without using any jargon?
   • Would common people understand the abstract?
4. Methodology
   • Is the research design appropriate and rigorous?
   • Is the sample size and sampling technique valid and reliable?
   • Are the methods clearly described and reproducible?
5. Data and Results
   • Are the data valid, reliable, and appropriately analyzed?
   • Were the data analysis and results supported to achieve the objectives of the article?
   • Are the results presented clearly and supported by evidence?
6. Clarity and Organization
   • Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?
   • Does it include an informative abstract, a well-defined introduction, a transparent methodology, and relevant conclusions?
7. Conclusion
   • Does the conclusion encompass the whole article briefly?
   • Are the theoretical and practical/managerial implications adequately stated?
   • Have limitations, along with future directions, been mentioned?
8. References
   • Are the references relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited?

Competing Interests

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their ability to provide an unbiased and fair evaluation of the manuscript. A competing interest may arise in various situations, including but not limited to:

• Personal Relationships: A close personal or professional relationship with any of the authors.
• Professional Affiliations: Employment or collaboration with the same institution or organization as the author(s).
• Financial Interests: Financial ties or interests, such as grants, funding, or investments, that could be affected by the manuscript's findings.
• Intellectual Conflicts: Pre-existing opinions or competing research in the same area that could compromise neutrality.

If a reviewer identifies any potential competing interest, they should:

1. Notify the Editor: Inform the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor immediately and provide details of the conflict.
2. Recuse Themselves if Necessary: If the conflict is significant, the reviewer should step down to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.

Transparency and Professionalism:
Even if the reviewer believes that the conflict is minor or manageable, full disclosure is required to allow the editorial team to assess its relevance. The journal relies on reviewers’ professionalism and honesty to ensure the peer-review process remains fair and objective.

If you are unsure whether a competing interest exists, please consult with the editorial office for clarification.

Review Outcomes

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers are expected to recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required (Minor Revision)
• Resubmit for Review (Major Revision)
• Submit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission (Reject)