> For Authors and Reviewers > Instruction for Reviewers

Instructions for Review | Academy of Asian Business Review


For a paper to be published in the Academy of Asian Business Review, it must meet three minimum criteria:

  • 1. Make a contribution to the science and practice of Asian business and marketing.
  • 2. Be based on sound evidence--literature review, theory, data, and/or empirical research.
  • 3. Be valuable to academicians and/or practitioners.

If you have not done so recently, please read the AAB Editorial Policy for manuscripts. The Board of Directors of the AAB(Academy of Asian business) has established formal policies regarding the kinds of articles appropriate for publication in the Academy of Asian Business Review.

Guidelines for Written Comments

Please prepare detailed evaluative comments for the author(s). Remember that AABR will send this entire section to the author(s). It is important to be polite when providing comments supporting your recommendation, even when you must be critical of the manuscript. Try to be as comprehensive, specific, and constructive as possible in your comments to the author(s). Your comments should be helpful to the author(s) in improving the manuscript, even if you believe that the manuscript does not merit publication in AABR.

The following format is suggested for preparing comments for the author(s):

  • 1.Identification of the contribution and major strengths of the paper. Is this paper appropriate for AABR? What are the strengths of the paper? If, in your assessment, the paper does not make a contribution or have any strengths, a politely worded opening paragraph summarizing the essence of the paper would be appropriate.
  • 2.Major weaknesses of the paper. The following are some questions you should try to address:
    (a) Does the manuscript provide sufficient information to make an evaluation? If not, what information is needed? Be specific.
    (b) Does the manuscript have mistakes? If so, are they correctable? How? Would removing problematic sections be a solution? If the mistake is not correctable, please state why.
    (c) Do the authors achieve their stated objectives? If not, what do they still need to do?
  • 3. Abstract and Title. Comments and suggestions, if any, (d) What are the major changes that should be made and/or major issues that should be addressed in a revision?
  • 4.Other changes that would potentially strengthen the manuscript and/or minor issues that should be addressed in a revision. When discussing minor issues, it is usually helpful to indicate the place in the manuscript (page and paragraph) where the change should be made.
  • 5.Readability. Some questions you might consider:
    (a) Is the length-to-contribution ratio appropriate? A "desirable" length is 25 pages of text, excluding references, tables, and figures.
    (b) Are there sections of the manuscript that can be eliminated or condensed? Are there sections of the manuscript that might be moved to a technical appendix?
    (c) Will the paper be interesting to both academicians and practitioners? If not, how can it be strengthened? Do you see managerial implications that the authors have overlooked or failed to treat in sufficient depth?
  • 6.Regarding the abstract (whether it is an accurate and useful summary of the content of the paper) and title (whether it is appropriate given the content of the paper).

You may write a separate note to the editor if you think it necessary to alert the editor to issues that would be inappropriate, in your opinion, to include in the Comments to the Author(s).