REVIEWERS GUIDELINES – Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

                        ISSN ONLINE 3061-2640

 
   Home       |        Aims & Scope       |        Editorial Board       |        Publication Ethics and Malpractice       |        Editorial workflow       |       Abstracting & Indexing

                                                                              Authors Guidelines               |               Reviewers Guidelines               |               Archive

 

Instructions for Reviewers

1 .  Ethical Guidelines & Conflict of Interest

As a reviewer for JKD, you play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript is a confidential document. Do not share or discuss it with third parties.
  • Double-Blind Integrity: If you happen to identify the author(s) through the text or data, please notify the editor immediately.
  • Conflict of Interest: Decline the invitation if you have a personal or professional connection with the authors or if you have a financial interest in the research outcomes.
  • Plagiarism: While JKD uses anti-plagiarism software, please alert the editor if you suspect substantial overlap with previously published work.

2.  Review Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following core pillars:

A.   Alignment with Knowledge Dynamics

Does the paper focus on Knowledge Management, Transfer, or Transformation? We prioritize research that integrates:

  • Digitalization & Technology: Usage of AI, Big Data, or Blockchain.
  • Socio-Economic Impact: Relevance to Section IX (Economic, Legal, and Sociological Sciences).

B.  Scientific Quality & Methodology

  • Originality: Does the work provide a novel contribution to the field?
  • Rigorous Methodology: Are the theoretical frameworks sound? Is the experimental design (if applicable) robust and reproducible?
  • Clarity of Results: Are the findings supported by the data or logical arguments provided?

C.  Presentation & Structure

  • Title & Abstract: Do they accurately reflect the content?
  • Language: Is the English clear and professional?
  • References: Are the citations up-to-date and relevant to the “hot topics” discussed?

3.  Reviewer Checklist & Evaluation Scale

We suggest using the following categories for your evaluation:

Criterion Poor Fair Good Excellent
Originality of Topic ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Technical Accuracy ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Focus on Knowledge Dynamics ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Integration of Tech (AI/Digital) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Clarity of Writing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

4.  Constructing Your Feedback

Please provide a structured report divided into two sections:

  • Confidential Comments to the Editor: Summary of the paper’s strengths/weaknesses and your honest recommendation.
  • Comments for the Author: * General Summary: Briefly summarize the paper’s intent.
  • Major Points: Address fundamental flaws or significant contributions.
  • Minor Points: Note typos, formatting issues, or citation suggestions.

Note: Please maintain a polite, constructive, and professional tone. The goal is to help the authors improve their work, regardless of the final decision.

5. Final Recommendation
Based on your rigorous assessment, please select one of the following:

  • Accept: The paper is ready for publication as is.
  • Minor Revision: The paper is strong but requires small adjustments.
  • Major Revision: The paper has potential but requires significant restructuring or additional data.
  • Reject: The paper does not meet the journal’s standards for novelty, accuracy, or scope.

 

Reviewer Evaluation Form

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics (JKD)

Published by Section IX: Economic, Legal, and Sociological Sciences – Academy of Romanian Scientists

  1. MANUSCRIPT INFORMATION
  • Manuscript Title: ___________________________________________________________
  • Manuscript ID: _____________________________________________________________
  • Date Sent for Review: __________________ | Date Review Due: ________________
  1. CORE SCOPE ASSESSMENT

Does the manuscript align with the journal’s focus?

  1. Knowledge Focus: Does the paper specifically address Knowledge Management, Transfer, or Transformation?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Partially

  1. Technological Integration: Does the paper explore AI, Digitalization, or New Technologies?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not applicable to this specific topic

III. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

Please rate the following aspects on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent):

Evaluation Criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Originality: Novelty of the contribution [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scientific Rigor: Strength of methodology/theory [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Topic Relevance: Alignment with Section IX (ARS) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Literature Review: Current and relevant citations [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Structure: Organization and logical flow [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Language: Quality of English and technical terms [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
  1. QUALITATIVE COMMENTS
  2. Summary of Research: (Briefly describe the objective and main contribution of the paper)
  3. Major Strengths:
  4. Major Weaknesses / Critical Flaws:
  5. Suggestions for Improvement: (Please provide specific feedback to help the authors refine their work)

\

  1. FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Please select only one:

[ ] Accept As Is: High quality, no changes needed.

[ ] Minor Revision: Acceptable with small corrections (typos, minor clarification).

[ ] Major Revision: Potential for publication after significant rewriting or data re-analysis.

[ ] Reject: Does not meet the journal’s standards for novelty, rigor, or scope.

  1. CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR

(These comments will not be shared with the authors)

Reviewer Signature/ID: _________________________ Date: ___________________