Reviewer Guidelines

Editorial Review Board and Process

NCMR prides itself on highly constructive/developmental reviews (a mainstay of the journal). We maintain an editorial review board (ERB) that consist of highly acclaimed scholars and experts in negotiation and conflict management. NCMR reviewers and its review process follow the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers at COPE, Peer Review Ethics at APA, and the Association of American University Presses (AAUP) Acquisitions Editorial Committee’s publication, AAUP Handbook: Best Practices for Peer Review.

NCMR utilizes a double-blind review process. Authors and reviewers alike are expected to respect the other’s anonymity, as well as the confidentiality of the review and surrounding communications. If, as a reviewer, you have knowledge of the manuscript’s authorship, please notify the editorial team so that the manuscript be re-assigned.

Reviewer Evaluations

To assure authors will receive constructive feedback from our reviewers for their manuscript, reviewers typically evaluate the manuscript in the following areas:

  1. The fitness of the manuscript to the journal (and to the special issue call if applicable)
  2. The writing quality of the manuscript
  3. The manuscript’s overall contribution to the knowledge in the field
  4. The appropriateness and sufficiency of the literature review to the journal and the subject matter
  5. The conceptualization and explication of the key constructs
  6. The soundness of the theoretical framework(s) cited and/or proposed
  7. The justification of the propositions or hypotheses
  8. The methodological rigor
  9. The quality of data analysis or case analysis
  10. The interpretation of the results and the justification of conclusions
  11. The structure of the manuscript (e.g. APA usage, layout, length, inclusion of tables and figures)

Reviewers are expected to provide a brief summary in the beginning of their review, followed by a detailed evaluation of each of the major components of the manuscript (conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, and discussion and conclusion). Remember most reviewers, if not all, are authors as well. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and high-quality feedback to support authors’ efforts to develop and enhance the quality of the research. Following the evaluations, the reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following actions: (1) reject, (2) major revise and resubmit (3) minor revise and resubmit, or (4) accept

To Become a Reviewer or an ERB Member

To become a reviewer, a doctoral degree and a well-established research program with expertise in conflict management and/or negotiation are required. Please sign up here (

If you are interested to become an ERB member, please first sign up as a reviewer and email the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) with your Curriculum Vitae. The EIC will selectively invite potential ERB members to review 3-5 manuscripts within a year. If the reviewer consistently meets the expectations for quality reviews as stated above and in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers at COPE, Peer Review Ethics at APA, and AAUP Handbook: Best Practices for Peer Review, upon the invitation of the EIC, the reviewer will join NCMR’s ERB. The ERB members will be evaluated annually for the continued invitation.