Guidelines for Reviewers

Review structure and content

Thank you for taking the time and effort to write the review following this guideline.

Reviews aim to help the authors improve their manuscripts. Please keep your comments constructive. Start your review with the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript to help the authors identify which part of their work needs improvement. When writing an assessment, please be as specific as possible and indicate the location of suggested corrections by page or paragraph numbers. Authors deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work. Please maintain a professional tone and provide constructive criticism that authors can use to improve their work, even if recommending rejection for their manuscript.

Besides a textual assessment, Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review asks for a quantitative evaluation of manuscripts based on the following criteria. Considering these areas and evaluation criteria might also help to compose the written assessment.

1. Contribution: Does the submission contribute to the existing scientific knowledge? Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice community? Is the research question interesting and original? (You might review Google Scholar, Web of Science or Scopus databases for checking originality.)
2. Quality of literature review: Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework? Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined? Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing? Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory? Does the manuscript build on previous findings or debates published in the journal?
3. Adequacy of methods: Are the chosen methodology appropriate for the theory and research questions and have they been applied appropriately? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical techniques used? Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses? Or has the data reached saturation? Does the study have internal and external validity? If the method is novel, is the presentation appropriately detailed? Is data analysis clear and convincing? 
4. Relevance of results: Are the results comprehendible? Are the results of the manuscript in connection with reviewed literature? Are its findings relevant for other researchers? Does the manuscript stimulate thought or debate?
5. Accuracy, clarity, structure: Do the title, abstract, and given keywords cover the content of the paper? Are figures and tables necessary, sufficient, clear, and easy to understand? Are style and language professional and appropriate? Is the structure of the manuscript clear and proportionate? Is the line of thoughts easy to follow?

Our journal uses an online journal management platform which also serves as a review submission interface. In addition to rating the elements of the explicit criteria system above on a four-point scale, we also welcome detailed reviewer comments, feedback, and suggestions in a free text form. We recommend that you first write (and save) your review in a word processor and then copy and paste it into the online review form. During the evaluation, you can also make comments addressed only to the editor (and will not be seen by the authors) – this is of course optional.

If you include and upload a commented manuscript with your review, please ensure anonymity for both the document metadata and the reviewed manuscript.

Peer review process

The general characteristics of the journal’s peer-review process

Identity transparency: Double anonymised peer review. Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor.

Reviewers interact with the editors.

Review information is not published.

Review procedure

1. Author Submission: The author(s) submit their manuscript to the journal without any identifying information. Authors must remove explicit indications of the authors’ names and institutions from the text and the file metadata, as well as all acknowledgments. (Author names, institutions, and acknowledgments will be returned to the printed manuscript upon acceptance for publication.) The paper should be written in such a way that it does not reveal an author’s identity. (Anonymisation guides: deleting author metadata from files, deleting author data from comments and track-changes.) Authors should not refer to their previous work in a way that would identify them to the reviewers: If self-citation is necessary, it should be done in the third person, or in some cases, authors can cite their own work by replacing their name with "Author" in the citation (revealing their identity only in post-review phase).
   
   
2. Initial screening: The journal editor-in-chief and/or an associate editor conducts an initial review to ensure the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards and formal requirements (see author guidelines). Manuscripts that pass this screening are then assigned to associate editors based on their field of expertise.

3. External review: all the papers are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, who are experts on the subject concerned. It is up to the responsible associate editor to choose and invite the reviewers. The evaluation is carried out in accordance with the principle of double anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article (Double anonymized peer review). Authors are not asked to recommend reviewers. Reviews or reviewer identities are not posted with articles.
   The editors ask reviewers to read the guidelines for reviewers before preparing the evaluation.
   Each peer-review rounds take about 4-6 weeks on average.
   Supplementary material can be shared with reviewers during the review process based on the editor’s decision.
   Reviewers provide a detailed free text review for the authors, remarks to the editors (not mandatory) and a condensed evaluation on the following characteristics on a four-grade scale:

• • Relevance of the topic
  • Quality of the literature review
  • Methodology
  • Relevance and expected outcome of the article
  • Accuracy, clarity, structure of the paper

4. Editor’s decision: Based on the reviews the dedicated associate editor makes the decision on the manuscript, which can be a request for minor or major revisions, a recommendation for resubmission here or elsewhere or a rejection. In case of any doubt the associate editor may involve the editor-in-chief in decision-making, or if it is related to a broader issue, than ask the opinion of the team of associate editors.
   The editor communicates the decision to the author(s), including the anonymous reviewers' comments to help the author(s) understand the reasons behind the decision and any required changes.

5. Revisions: If revisions are requested, the author(s) revise the manuscript and resubmit it. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review or to new reviewers, depending on the associate editor’s decision. Several rounds of revisions may be asked from the Authors.
   
   
6. Final decision: After the review and revision process, the responsible associate editor makes a final decision on the manuscript (see also step 4). If accepted, the manuscript moves forward to the publication process. The final decision is communicated to the author(s).

Special issues articles are subject to the same peer review process, curated by a designated associate editor or guest editor who is a renowned expert of the field.

See further policies concerning processes for handling conflicts of interest, appeals and disputes that may arise during the peer review process.

Short editorials of special issues and academic communiqués do not undergo double blind peer review, they are accepted based on the evaluation of the editorial team.

Publication ethics and journal policies

Please read the detailed journal policies here.

If you receive a manuscript in which you find plagiarism (copying of ideas, text, data, figures, tables, or other creative work from other published work without correct reference), you should immediately contact the section editor responsible for the reviewing process. If you find that the manuscript is based on false data, written in an unacceptable style, or its author, according to your judgment, commits any other forms of ethical misbehavior, immediately contact the section editor or the editor-in-chief.

Budapest Management Review conducts double-blind peer-reviews, accordingly, reviewers should avoid revealing their identity in their critique and must not try to find out authors’ identities.

If you discover a conflict of interest with an assigned manuscript (e.g., resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships with any of the authors), the section editor or editor-in-chief must be notified promptly and you should ask to cancel the request and exclude you from the review process.

Private information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Until its publication, the assigned manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers must not share it with third parties or use its findings in their own research.

Manuscripts may include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

Please respond quickly to review invitations and meet given deadlines. If you cannot accept a review invitation or complete the review within the set timeline, please indicate it to the section editor as soon as possible.

Privacy statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. Please see details: Data Processing Notice.