Guidelines for Reviewers

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.

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.

Budapest Management Review conducts double-blind peer-reviews, meaning that both the authors and the reviewers are ‘blind’ to the identity of the other. Authors must remove explicit indications of the authors’ names and institutions and all acknowledgments must be removed. The paper should be written in such a way that it does not reveal an author’s identity. Reviewers should avoid revealing their identity in their critique and must not try to find out authors’ identities.

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.

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.

II. Review structure and content

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, 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 Budapest Management Review?

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?

III. Useful tips on how to use the Reviewers’ Guide

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 proofread text with your review, please ensure anonymity for both the document metadata and the proofread text.

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