Before accepting or declining a review, please consider whether or not the manuscript is within your area of expertise, whether or not you have a conflict of interest, and whether or not you have the time to invest in a proper review. Please respond, to either accept or decline, as soon as you can.

To start your review, please provide a short summary of the article. This shows the Editor that you have read and comprehended the article. Then, give your primary impressions of the article. Is it novel? Is it interesting? Will it have a significant impact on this area of research? Is it up to the standards of JFBR?

Specific comments and suggestions will also help the authors improve the manuscript. It is helpful to concentrate on the experimental methodology, the discussion of the results, and the conclusions reached by the authors. Issues such as grammar and formatting will be handled by the editorial staff, so you do not need to spend time on these aspects of the manuscript. To facilitate the revision process, comments about specific items in a reviewed article should be listed according to line number.

When you submit your review report using OJS, you will have the opportunity to provide your recommendation. This will be one of the following:

• Accept Submission (no revisions required; this is quite rare).
• Revisions Required (manuscript will be acceptable after either minor or major revisions; please provide an explanation of the revisions required in your review report).
• Resubmit for Review (manuscript requires major revision, possibly with the addition of new experiments, and the reviewer wishes to evaluate the revised version).
• Resubmit Elsewhere (manuscript is technically sound, but limited in scope or a better fit for a different journal).
• Decline Submission (manuscript is flawed in such a way that it should not be published).
• See Comments (for any other recommendation that does not fit any of the above categories).

If you suspect plagiarism, fraud, or any other type of scientific misconduct, please let the Editor know. Please provide as much detail as possible in these cases, e.g., citations of previously published material.

After considering all review reports, the Editor will ultimately determine the fate of a manuscript. Reviewers should be notified by OJS when the Editor has made a decision. If you have not received such notification and wish to learn whether the article was accepted or rejected, please contact Karolina Chudy at karolina@forest-analytics.com

Conflict of interest and Publication Ethics

The Journal of Forest Business Research expects authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to conduct themselves with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.

A peer review is an essential component of the scientific process. It should be an objective evaluation of the facts presented in the manuscript. Any personal criticism is unwarranted and inappropriate. You should be able to support your judgment of the article in such a way that the Editors and authors will be able to incorporate your feedback to improve the article. Any relevant published work that has been omitted should be pointed out.

Reviewers are expected to provide a bias-free evaluation of the work under consideration. Any personal interest or relationship that could potentially affect the review should be declared before agreeing to review the manuscript.

Reviewers should call the Editor’s attention to any irregularities in the manuscript, including suspected plagiarism of text or figures, or any other type of suspected scientific misconduct.

Reviewers should treat the manuscript as a confidential document. It should not be shown to others, or its contents disseminated in any way before publication.