1. Introduction

The International Journal of Event Management Research (IJEMR) relies on the expertise and integrity of peer reviewers to maintain the highest standards of academic quality. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring that published research is rigorous, relevant, original, and ethically conducted.

All reviews are conducted under a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

By agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers commit to:

• Providing an objective, constructive, and timely evaluation

• Maintaining strict confidentiality of the manuscript

• Declaring any conflicts of interest

• Evaluating manuscripts solely on academic merit

• Avoiding personal criticism of the author

Reviewers should decline an invitation if:

• The manuscript falls outside their expertise

• They are unable to complete the review within the specified timeline

• There is a conflict of interest (personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative)

3. Review Timeline

• Reviewers are generally expected to submit their review within 2–4 weeks of accepting the invitation.

• If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

4.1 Relevance and Scope

• Does the manuscript align with the journal’s focus on event management and related disciplines?

• Is the topic relevant to scholars and practitioners in event research?

4.2 Originality and Contribution

• Does the paper present original research or novel insights?

• Does it significantly contribute to theory, methodology, or practice?

4.3 Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?

• Does it clearly identify research gaps?

4.4 Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate and well explained?

• Are data collection and analysis methods rigorous and valid?

• Are ethical standards followed?

4.5 Results and Discussion

• Are results clearly presented and logically interpreted?

• Does the discussion link findings to theory and practice?

4.6 Structure and Clarity

• Is the manuscript well organized and coherent?

• Is the language clear and academically appropriate?

4.7 References

• Are references current, relevant, and formatted in APA (7th edition)?

• Are all cited works included in the reference list?

5. Reviewer Report Structure

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their report as follows:

A. Summary of the Manuscript

Briefly describe the purpose, methodology, and key findings.

B. Major Comments

• Substantive concerns regarding theory, methodology, or analysis

• Suggestions for strengthening the manuscript

C. Minor Comments

• Grammar, formatting, clarity issues

• Minor corrections or improvements

D. Recommendation

Select one of the following:

• Accept

• Accept with Minor Revisions

• Major Revisions Required

• Reject

Clear justification should accompany the recommendation.

6. Ethical Standards

Reviewers must:

• Treat the manuscript as a confidential document

• Not use unpublished material for personal research

• Notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplication, or ethical misconduct

• Avoid identifying themselves within review comments

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts, including:

• Personal relationships with the author(s)

• Institutional affiliation overlap

• Financial interests

• Prior collaboration within the last 3 years

If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must not be:

• Shared with colleagues without editorial permission

• Used for teaching or research

• Discussed publicly

All review materials must be deleted after completion of the review process.

9. Constructive Feedback Principles

Reviewers should:

• Provide balanced feedback (strengths and weaknesses)

• Be respectful and professional

• Offer actionable suggestions

• Avoid biased or discriminatory language

The aim of peer review is to improve scholarly work, not to discourage authors.

10. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal may:

• Provide annual reviewer acknowledgment lists

• Issue certificates of reviewing

• Recognize outstanding reviewers

11. Contact Information

For reviewer-related inquiries:

Editorial Office

International Journal of Event Management Research