- Review Process:
- Review Suggestions
- Do you think the paper develops/challenges/extends knowledge in the field of International Business?
- Theory: Does the study further inform or improve our understanding? How? Are the key concepts clearly defined?
- Literature review: Does the paper cite appropriate literature and build on existing work on the topic? If not, can you offer important references that the author has missed? Are the references cited up-to-date?
- Research design and methods (if applicable): Is the research process well described? Is the chosen method appropriate for the research question? Are the measures used well developed and defended? Is the data sufficient for answering the research question and methods of analysis? Are aspects of reliability and validity addressed appropriately?
- Analysis and findings (if applicable): Were the data appropriately analyzed? Are the findings in line with the literature and theoretical framework presented?
- Contribution: Does the paper make a meaningful contribution to our current understanding of the topic? Does it provide new and meaningful insights?
- Structure: Is the length of the paper appropriate? Does the manuscript have a logical flow? Has the author followed the prescribed layout and formatting instructions of the conference? Do the title and abstract adequately reflect the content of the article?
- Clarity of presentation: Was the paper easy to read? Did it have a logical flow? Was the (English) language understandable and grammatically correct? Were there any spelling errors or typos, missing bibliographic information, poorly-constructed tables and figures, etc.?
- Competitive, Interactive, Poster and teaching case Sessions
This is a very important process. The conference would not be possible without the careful work of reviewers.
ALL THE AUTHORS of the papers submitted to the conference are expected to PERFORM REVIEWS.
Track Chairs will nominate the Best Reviewers for their track. The winner of the award is recognized with a certificate during the conference programme.
The review process for the conference is a double-blind one, which aims at advancing research in the field of International Business. We welcome conceptual, methodological, and empirical papers that provide novel insights to the conference delegates. In terms of empirical studies, we are open to qualitative and quantitative submissions. Case studies are welcomed.
Our aim is to put together a rigorous academic conference, which will be of interest to many scholars. However, our success depends on your contribution as a Reviewer.
The deadline for reviews – November 15th, 2016 :
Please send your review as soon as possible. If you cannot respond within the stated time period, immediately notify the Track Chair so that s/he can reassign the paper to another reviewer.
Be precise, constructive, and provide sufficient detail: It is important that authors learn from the reviews. If you think the paper should be accepted for a different type of session or rejected, make sure to tell the author how the paper could be improved. If the judgment is positive, identify the strengths of a manuscript. Try to judge the paper on how well it stimulates thinking and discussion. Be consistent: a good comment corresponds to a good mark and vice versa.
Please use a friendly tone. Remember, these are all your colleagues.
Also, please keep in mind that these are submissions to a conference, not a journal, so please review them accordingly, by conserving that they are all unfinished work which shall benefit from constructive feedback. This means that your reviews need not be as long and detailed as journal reviews, and your reviews should take into account the somewhat more lenient acceptance rates at conferences.
In case you suspect plagiarism or fraud, please consult the Track Chair. In case you feel that you either recognize the author or have another conflict of interest, please request not to review the manuscript.
In terms of content of the paper, we would particularly like you to pay attention to the following points:
Do not tell the authors what your recommendation (accept, reject) is. This is a decision to be taken by the Track Chair, based on the reviewers’ recommendations to her/him and on her/his own assessment.
The following table should help you perform your reviews:
|Type of Session||Type of Paper||Benefits for authors||Review results options|
|Competitive *||The manuscript is almost ready for submission to a journal. 7,500 words max.||Reviews and comments help bring the paper to the level required by journals||– Accepted as Competitive
– Accepted as Interactive
|Interactive||The paper is in its initial stages. Yet, the method part is almost complete. 5,000 words max.||Comments from reviewers, session chair and participants help refine the paper.||– Accepted as Interactive
|Poster||Research project.Extended abstract.2 pages max. single space||Comments from session chair and participants help validate the research project and/or offer new directions||– Accepted as Poster
|Teaching case track||The case study is almost ready. 7,500 words max||Reviews and comments help refine the case study.||– Accepted as a chair
Only more mature and developed papers should be recommended for “Competitive” sessions.
Papers that are more work-in-progress should be recommended for Interactive sessions.