9-Reviewer Policy & Selection Guidelines

Who can become a Reviewer for BER?

A person who has the degree of PhD in the relevant field OR have the completed Master in relevant field and have minimum 5-year experience in the same field.

Advantages for become a Reviewer

  • Reviewers are important to us; BER’s aims to engage Reviewers and reward them for the work they do.
  • Reviewer get remuneration for the reviewing research article.
  • We are appreciating reviewer’s time and effort very much in reviewing article for us to publish the best quality papers in ‘Business & Economic Review'. We pay 5000 as an honorarium for a local review, and US dollars equivalent to Rs.10,000 for a foreign review.
  • Getting involved in the peer review process can be a highly rewarding experience that can also improve your own research and help to further your career.
  • Reviewer got the certificate from the BER.
  • Improve your reputation and increase your exposure to key figures in the field.
  • Stay up to date with the latest literature, and have advanced access to research results.
  • Develop critical thinking skills essential to research.
  • Advance in your career – peer review is an essential role for researchers.

How to become reviewer/Referral for BER?

  • Please visit our website and fill in the available form here. (bereview.pk)
  • Reviewer will receive notification for submitting the request to BER by provided his/her email id. The journal will evaluate the request.
  • Upon acceptance, the reviewer will be assigned a Reviewer ID that can be used in our Reviewer Management System.

9.1    Reviewer Policy

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of research published in the Business & Economic Review (BER).

The policy applies to all reviewers participating in the peer review process and is informed by best practices from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

9.2    Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for:

  • Assessing the quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
  • Providing timely, constructive, and unbiased feedback to authors and editors.
  • Identifying ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or conflicts of interest.
  • Maintaining confidentiality and refraining from sharing manuscript content.
  • Declining to review if they are not qualified or have a conflict of interest.

9.3    Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

9.3.1 Subject Matter Expertise

  • Must hold relevant qualifications and/or academic experience in the manuscript's subject area.
  • A demonstrated track record of peer-reviewed publications or relevant professional expertise is preferred.

9.3.2 Academic and Professional Standing

  • Reviewers should hold at least a master’s degree (preferably a Ph.D.) in a relevant discipline.
  • Preference is given to individuals affiliated with recognized academic or research institutions.

9.3.3 Ethical Conduct History

  • Reviewers must have a reputation for ethical scholarly conduct.
  • BER avoids assigning reviewers with a history of misconduct or unprofessional behavior.

9.3.4 Diversity and Inclusion

  • BER is committed to selecting reviewers from diverse geographic regions, gender identities, career stages, and institutional backgrounds to ensure a balanced and inclusive evaluation process.

9.4    Reviewer Selection Process

The reviewer selection process involves several steps:

9.4.1 Editor Recommendation

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor recommends potential reviewers based on expertise and topic match.

9.4.2 Database Search

  • The editorial office uses:
    • BER’s internal reviewer database
    • Author-suggested reviewers (with validation)
    • Research indexing platforms (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, Publons)
    • ORCID and academic profiles

9.4.3 Conflict of Interest Check

  • Editors review potential conflicts before inviting a reviewer.
  • A reviewer is not assigned if they have:
    • Collaborated with the author in the last 3 years
    • Supervised or been supervised by the author
    • Personal or institutional affiliations likely to compromise impartiality

9.5    Reviewer Database Management

BER maintains a confidential, secure reviewer database that tracks:

  • Areas of expertise
  • Review history and quality
  • Response times
  • Recommendations and outcomes
  • Performance feedback (editorial rating)

The database is regularly updated and reviewed to:

  • Ensure accuracy
  • Retire inactive reviewers
  • Recognize high-performing reviewers

9.6    Reviewer Ethics and Conduct

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which include:

9.6.1 Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others.
  • Content may not be used for personal research or publication.

9.6.2 Objectivity

  • Reviews should be based on scholarly merit, not personal bias or competitive motives.
  • Criticism must be professional and focused on content—not the author(s).

9.6.3 Constructiveness

  • Reviews should offer clear, respectful, and actionable feedback.
  • Vague or hostile comments are unacceptable.

9.6.4 Conflict of Interest Disclosure

  • Reviewers must inform the editor of any real or potential conflicts.
  • Reviewers should recuse themselves when a conflict is present.

9.7    Reviewer Performance Standards

9.7.1 Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within the agreed-upon timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks).
  • Delays should be communicated promptly to the editorial office.

9.7.2 Review Quality

Editors evaluate reviews based on:

  • Depth of analysis
  • Clarity of comments
  • Relevance to the manuscript’s content
  • Constructiveness of suggestions

9.7.3 Communication

  • Reviewers must use respectful, inclusive, and academic language.
  • Review forms must be completed fully, including comments to both authors and editors.

9.8    Reviewer Feedback and Support

BER supports reviewer development by:

  • Providing editorial feedback on review quality when needed.
  • Sharing editorial decisions with reviewer’s post-review.
  • Offering reviewer guidelines, sample reviews, and ethical resources.
  • Inviting experienced reviewers to mentor early-career researchers through co-review opportunities.

9.9    Anonymity and Identity Disclosure

9.9.1 Double-Blind Peer Review

BER operates a double-blind review process:

  • Reviewers do not know author identities.
  • Authors do not know reviewer identities.

9.9.2 Optional Identity Disclosure

If both parties consent post-publication, BER may consider transparent acknowledgment of reviewer contributions (e.g., through platforms like Publons). However, identity remains protected unless explicitly agreed.

9.10  Special Cases in Reviewer Selection

9.10.1 Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may recommend reviewers during submission, but:

  • Suggested reviewers must have no conflict of interest.
  • Editorial teams verify qualifications and independence.
  • The editor is under no obligation to use suggested reviewers.

9.10.2 Blacklisted Reviewers

Reviewers found to have committed misconduct, breached ethics, or delivered fraudulent reviews may be blacklisted and barred from future participation.

9.11   Reviewer Training

BER aims to strengthen the peer review ecosystem by offering:

  • Webinars and training resources on:
    • Ethical reviewing
    • Constructive feedback
    • Identifying research misconduct
  • Reviewer manuals and evaluation checklists
  • Opportunities for editorial mentorship

9.12 Policy Review and Updates

This Reviewer Policy & Selection Guidelines document is reviewed every two years or earlier if:

  • New ethical guidelines are introduced by COPE or other bodies
  • Reviewer performance or feedback suggests needed changes
  • Technological or procedural changes occur in the peer review system

Updates are published on BER’s website and distributed to active reviewers.