Reviewers provide independent scholarly advice to QELJ editors and contribute to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal.

Reviews must be objective, constructive, confidential, and based on relevant subject expertise.

1. RELEVANCE AND SCOPE

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to one or more of QELJ's principal areas:

• General Business, Management and Accounting
• Cultural Studies
• General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
• Visual Arts and Performing Arts

Interdisciplinary contributions connecting these areas are also appropriate.

2. ORIGINALITY AND CONTRIBUTION

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the research or scholarly problem is clearly identified;
• the contribution is original or sufficiently distinctive;
• the research gap or scholarly rationale is established; and
• the manuscript advances knowledge, theory, methodology, interpretation, professional practice, cultural understanding, artistic scholarship, or policy.

3. LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Reviewers should assess whether:

• relevant literature has been adequately considered;
• important perspectives are represented;
• the theoretical or conceptual framework is appropriate; and
• citations are relevant and accurately used.

4. METHODOLOGY OR SCHOLARLY APPROACH

For empirical research, reviewers should evaluate research design, sampling, data, instruments, methods, analysis, validity, reliability, and ethical requirements.

For humanities, cultural-studies, visual-arts, and performing-arts research, reviewers should evaluate the suitability and rigor of the theoretical, historical, critical, interpretive, archival, ethnographic, artistic, or practice-based approach used.

5. RESULTS OR FINDINGS

Reviewers should determine whether findings are clearly presented and adequately supported by the research evidence or scholarly analysis.

6. DISCUSSION

The discussion should:

• interpret the findings appropriately;
• connect them with relevant scholarship;
• avoid unsupported claims;
• consider alternative interpretations where relevant; and
• identify meaningful theoretical, practical, cultural, economic, managerial, or artistic implications.

7. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Conclusions must follow from the evidence and analysis.

Important limitations should be acknowledged.

Recommendations should be proportionate to the findings.

8. PRESENTATION

Reviewers should consider:

• organization;
• clarity;
• academic language;
• quality of tables and figures;
• accuracy of references; and
• overall readability.

9. RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Reviewers should confidentially notify the editor of suspected:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• manipulated images;
• fabricated references;
• unethical research;
• undisclosed conflicts;
• authorship concerns;
• citation manipulation; or
• other serious integrity problems.

10. CONFIDENTIALITY

Manuscripts and associated review materials must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use unpublished information for personal advantage.

11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers must decline assignments where financial, academic, professional, collaborative, institutional, competitive, or personal relationships could compromise impartiality.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editors.