Reviewer Guidelines

MET Manthan

Introduction

MET Manthan is committed to publishing high-quality scholarly research that contributes to the advancement of management knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, business strategy, and organizational excellence. The journal follows a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure academic integrity, scientific rigor, and relevance to management theory and practice.

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and reputation of the journal. The Editorial Board greatly appreciates the time, expertise, and commitment of reviewers in evaluating submitted manuscripts.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
  • Assess the originality, significance, methodology, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Complete reviews within the stipulated timeline.
  • Provide detailed comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Ethical Responsibilities

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with others without permission from the Editor.
  • Use unpublished information for personal research or professional gain.
  • Discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have:

  • Personal relationships with authors.
  • Institutional affiliations that may influence judgment.
  • Financial interests related to the manuscript.
  • Collaborative relationships with the authors within the previous three years.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally.

Comments should focus on:

  • Scientific merit.
  • Methodological rigor.
  • Scholarly contribution.
  • Clarity and quality of presentation.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts using the following criteria.

1. Relevance to Journal Scope

Evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of MET Manthan.

Questions to Consider:

  • Is the topic relevant to management, business, innovation, entrepreneurship, or organizational studies?
  • Will the paper be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

2. Originality and Novelty

Assess the originality of the work.

Questions to Consider:

  • Does the study offer new insights?
  • Does it advance existing knowledge?
  • Does it provide innovative perspectives or approaches?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

3. Literature Review

Evaluate the adequacy and quality of literature coverage.

Questions to Consider:

  • Is the literature current and relevant?
  • Are key theoretical foundations discussed?
  • Are research gaps clearly identified?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

4. Research Methodology

Assess methodological rigor.

Questions to Consider:

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are data collection methods clearly described?
  • Are analytical techniques valid and reliable?
  • Is the sample adequate?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

5. Data Analysis and Results

Evaluate analytical quality.

Questions to Consider:

  • Are statistical methods appropriate?
  • Are findings clearly presented?
  • Are tables and figures informative?
  • Do results support the conclusions?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

6. Discussion and Implications

Assess the contribution of findings.

Questions to Consider:

  • Are results interpreted correctly?
  • Are managerial implications discussed?
  • Are theoretical contributions identified?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

7. Quality of Writing

Evaluate presentation quality.

Questions to Consider:

  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Is the language clear and professional?
  • Are tables and figures appropriately labeled?
  • Are references properly cited?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

8. References and Citations

Assess reference quality.

Questions to Consider:

  • Are references current and relevant?
  • Are citations accurate and complete?
  • Is the reference style consistently followed?

Rating:

  • Excellent
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

Reviewer Recommendation

Based on the evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

Accept

The manuscript meets publication standards with minimal or no revisions required.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires small improvements that do not substantially affect the study's validity.

Major Revision

The manuscript has merit but requires significant revisions before reconsideration.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires extensive redevelopment and should be submitted as a new manuscript after substantial revision.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards regarding originality, methodology, contribution, or relevance.

Comments to Authors

Reviewers are encouraged to provide:

  • Specific suggestions for improvement.
  • Constructive recommendations.
  • Clear explanations for criticisms.
  • Guidance for strengthening theoretical and practical contributions.

Comments should be professional, respectful, and actionable.

Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the Editor regarding:

  • Publication suitability.
  • Ethical concerns.
  • Potential plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Data integrity issues.
  • Conflicts of interest.

These comments will not be shared with authors.

Plagiarism and Research Integrity

Reviewers should notify the Editor if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Self-plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Data fabrication.
  • Data falsification.
  • Citation manipulation.
  • Ethical violations involving human participants.

The journal follows international publication ethics standards and reserves the right to investigate all concerns.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to:

  • Accept or decline invitations within 7 days.
  • Submit completed reviews within 21 days.
  • Inform the Editorial Office immediately if additional time is required.

Recognition of Reviewers

MET Manthan acknowledges the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the journal's academic quality. Reviewers may receive:

  • Certificate of Reviewing.
  • Annual Reviewer Recognition.
  • Outstanding Reviewer Awards.
  • Editorial Board consideration based on performance and expertise.

Commitment to Excellence

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers contribute to the advancement of management research, academic integrity, and scholarly excellence. MET Manthan values the expertise and dedication of its reviewers and relies upon their professional judgment to uphold the highest standards of scientific publishing.