For Reviewers

JSMO Peer Reviewer Information Center

The editorial board is very grateful for the time spent by peer reviewers. The following is intended to help answer questions that peer reviewers may have. Please select from the menu for information on the following topics.

Reviewer Conduct

Reviews should be constructive in nature, focused on helping authors to improve the quality of their articles, and help the editors to assess the article’s publication potential. The same focus also applies to the submission category known as "perspectives," but we refer to both articles and perspectives as "articles" in the material below.  To assure fairness to authors, we request that reviewers abide by guidelines such as the following:

Specifically, reviewers should:

Back to top of page

Reviewers should not:

Submission Requirements

Concurrent Submission:  We do not consider articles that have been submitted to more than one publication at the same time.  If you, as a reviewer, determine that an article has been submitted to another publication before the JSMO review process is completed, or is still under consideration by another publication when submitted to JSMO, please let your Editorial Board contact know about this situation because it is our policy to automatically reject that manuscript.

Preliminary/Conference Version(s):  Articles presented in previous technical meetings or conferences can be considered for publication in JSMO.  Any such articles should present material of lasting interest, describing an original contribution to the field.  The article should emphasize advancements in knowledge rather than specific products or systems.  As a reviewer, you should check the submission to determine whether a sufficient amount of new material has been added to warrant publication in JSMO (we use 25% new material as a guideline).  New results are not required, but the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, etc., of the conference manuscript.

Text-Formatting Requirements:  All submissions should be in accordance with the JSMO template.  All files will be converted to a PDF prior to publication.

Each submission should have a title page containing the title and the names, affiliations, and contact information for all coauthors.  If acronyms are used, each one should be defined on its first appearance.

Please refer to the Author Information Center for detailed information on JSMO’s requirements for both the form and content of all submissions.

Back to top of page

Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

The following guidelines explain the questions asked on the Journal Evaluation Form.

1. Is the article topic appropriate for the Journal?

The Journal recognizes the importance of scholarship in academic fields such as organizational psychology, sociology, cognitive psychology, behavioral decision-making, complex adaptive systems, and others.  It welcomes case studies plus theoretical and empirical research that uses analytical, computational, laboratory, and/or field research methods, provided that such methods are well accepted and appropriate for the research questions being addressed.

Examples of topics that may be appropriate are the following:

2. What is new about this work?

All Journal articles should raise new and interesting questions, or explore problems using unique and thoughtful methods. Articles must do more than present information that is true; they must present information that is, in some aspect, original.  It is insufficient for an article to merely describe a concept or system.  The article must clearly demonstrate how it contributes some new knowledge to the existing literature.

Back to top of page

3. Is the literature review adequate and appropriate?

All Journal articles must be firmly grounded in the existing literature, as appropriate.  Authors are responsible for demonstrating a broad understanding of their subject, as shown by their references, and contributing to the state of knowledge in a manner that clearly builds upon current knowledge.

4. Is the research design and data analysis adequate and appropriate?

All Journal articles describing a program of research must clearly explain the purpose, design, and execution of their research, and in doing so, they must demonstrate why their actions represent best practice.  Journal articles describing a program of research must clearly demonstrate a logical progression from data through analysis to conclusions.  Conclusions must never arise from assumptions or untested assertions.

5. Is the article logical, consistent, and clearly written?

All Journal articles must demonstrate an internal logic and consistency throughout.  At no time should a reader feel lost or confused by the article’s rhetoric, language, or structure.  Journal articles must be written in a scholarly, professional, formal tone; however, articles should be written to appeal to a broad technical and academic audience.

6. Is the article outstanding?

The goal is to publish articles in JSMO that are interesting, relevant, present significant and novel results, and are well written.

Review Process

All articles submitted for publication will be subjected to rigorous peer review by active and publishing scholars selected for their knowledge and contributions, both inside and outside of the area(s) of study addressed in the article.

Reviews should be constructive in nature, focused on helping authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts, as well as helping the editors to assess the publication potential of the articles.  If you, as a reviewer, rate any aspect of an article below 3 (Neutral), we ask that you explain your rating in the “Comments to the Authors” section of the Journal Evaluation Form.

We hope that reviewers can submit reviews within the given time frame assigned by the Publications Coordinator, ideally within 2 – 4 weeks.  Prompt action is greatly appreciated by the Editorial Board as well as the authors who are very anxious to know the outcome of the peer review process. Timely reviewer participation is integral to helping us meet our goals.

We appreciate the reviewers' willingness to volunteer their time and expertise on behalf of the global community.  While the peer reviews are used as the basis for acceptance and content revisions, members of the Editorial Review Board and the Editors-in-Chief make the final decision regarding publication.

Back to top of page

The Recommendation Process

Recommendations fall into the following categories:


An accept decision means the submission is considered appropriate and timely for the JSMO; it contributes to the state of the science, art, and practice of enterprise social media; and thus it advances the state of knowledge and research.

Minor Revisions

A minor revision should be used for articles that have clear contributions and are considered worthy of publication pending the successful completion of a few changes.  Reviewers’ comments are shared with the author and the author is asked to respond to these and make the appropriate changes.  The Editorial Review Board and the Editors-in-Chief review the revised manuscript to ensure that the suggestions have been appropriately addressed.  

Request Major Revisions

A major revision means that the manuscript is considered to have potential for publication; however more extensive revisions are required before further consideration.  We strongly encourage reviewers to assist the authors by making clearly explained comments and recommendations.  Authors are requested to submit a revised draft, but will be informed that these revisions do not guarantee acceptance at a later date. While there is no rule against a second-round major revision, we strongly advise against it, if a major overhaul is required before it can be considered for publication.  Instead, we may recommend rejecting the article to allow the author(s) an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise and resubmit the article.


A reject decision means the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JSMO.  Guest Editors may not reject articles outright.  Instead, we ask that Guest Editors communicate with the Editorial Review Board first and share any concerns and recommendations.

Administrative Reject

A Guest Editor may reject the article without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies or failure to follow the submission guidelines.

Out of Scope

This rating is used when the submission does not fall within JSMO’s scope and/or topics of interest.  If this happens with a submission to a special issue, we ask the Guest Editor refer the manuscript to the Editors-in-Chief for "non-theme" issues or suggest a more suitable journal for submission.

Contact Us

If you wish to become a peer reviewer, or if you have any questions, please contact

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license; see

Back to top of page

Last updated: 07/07/2016