Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions based on the following scalar evaluation section. These evaluation questions are shared here as they may be helpful for prospective authors in writing or positioning their articles; for submitted papers these reviewer ratings are confidential, shared only with the JIBP Area Editor and not the authors of the submission.
Overall Contribution:
The manuscript contains insightful and impactful ideas on an international business policy phenomenon. The ideas and conclusions are cutting edge and offer new knowledge about international business policy. Academics and policy professionals interested in international business policy will want to read and cite this paper.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Policy relevance:
The litmus test for publishing in JIBP is policy relevance. The paper clearly explains how its insights matter for public policy discussions. The ideas and findings of this study have the potential to influence international business policy debates.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
International business relevance:
International business plays a central role in the manuscript. The paper’s key findings are influenced by the distinctive nature of cross-border transactions.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Literature review
The manuscript cites the appropriate and most-up-to-date literature and provides proper credit to existing work on the topic. The paper contains an appropriate number of references, neither excessive nor under referencing.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Methods – Quantitative:
(For quantitative pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for purely qualitative and conceptual pieces.) The sample, design, measures, and analyses provide convincing evidence regarding internal validity. Statistical procedures are used appropriately and results are reported transparently and comprehensively, so that readers are fully aware of all steps and procedures and would be able to conduct a similar study themselves if so desired. Major assumptions of the statistical techniques are reasonably well met. When applicable, robustness analyses provide additional evidence in support of substantive results and conclusions, and rule out alternative explanations. The limitations of the study are acknowledged.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Methods – Qualitative:
(For qualitative pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for purely quantitative and conceptual pieces.) The choice of research design is appropriate in light of the research question. The selection of the research site(s) and study participants is justified in a convincing way. Sufficient detail is provided on the data sources and collection methods to judge the quality of the evidence. The steps that were taken in data analysis are reported transparently and comprehensively, showing how the study’s theoretical conclusions were derived. The credibility, transferability, or other quality criteria appropriate to the study, are addressed. The limitations of the study are acknowledged.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Integration:
(For empirical pieces only – select ‘Not Applicable’ for conceptual pieces.) The empirical work provides a good test of the theory and hypotheses. There is sufficient empirical grounds to build new theory. The empirical method(s) chosen – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods – are appropriate for the paper’s research question and theory development or testing.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
Writing and Presentation:
The presentation style is appropriate for a top-level academic journal. The writing style is engaging. Figures and tables are well-labelled (avoid acronyms) and clearly explained. The paper is concisely written, void of unnecessary repetition and extraneous writing. The paper is enjoyable to read.
- Poor
- Below average
- Average
- Above average
- Excellent
