JIPE uses a double-anonymous model of peer review that emphasizes constructive, developmental feedback—particularly for authors who may be newer to academic publishing.

Peer review is mandatory for original research papers, review articles, brief reports, scholarly essays, and innovation spotlights. Articles are usually reviewed by one to two reviewers, who are selected based on their areas of expertise and relevant experience.

The editorial team facilitates all the reviews and mediates all interactions between reviewers and authors. JIPE’s peer review process is closed, meaning that the pre-publication history of each article will not be made available online.

The editorial team reviews all submissions for completeness, then assigns them to an editor for a desk review. After the desk review, the editor decides whether the article is suitable for peer review. Reviewers provide feedback on the paper’s strengths and weaknesses. We expect that most submissions will require some revisions. If revisions are requested and made, the original reviewers may be asked to review the revised version to determine whether the authors have sufficiently addressed the concerns.

In addition to peer-reviewed categories, JIPE also offers 2 non-peer reviewed options. To learn more, please see Submission Types.

If authors wish to know what reviewers are looking for in the manuscripts, they may refer to the Reviewer Request Form.

Reviewers must have the necessary academic or professional qualifications to evaluate the content and methodology of the work. This includes having:

• prior publications in the relevant field, and/or
• a strong background in relevant research methods.

Authors are welcome to suggest reviewers and may also request that the journal exclude one or two individuals. Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues. The editorial team will consider these requests but reserves the right to make final reviewer selections.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including financial interests, personal relationships, or academic rivalries that could affect impartiality. They should decline to review manuscripts if:

• they have a personal or professional conflict,
• they seek access to the manuscript without intending to complete a review, and/or
• the manuscript closely overlaps with their own unpublished work.

Reviewers are expected to personally evaluate manuscripts and uphold the integrity of the peer review process.
Reviewers are selected for their expertise; therefore:

• Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or related materials to Generative AI tools.
• Reviewers must not use AI to analyze, summarize, or evaluate submissions.
• AI writing tools (i.e. Grammarly) may only be used to help improve the language of a completed review.
• Any AI use must be disclosed to the editor, including the tool name, version, and purpose.

Additionally, the use of Generative AI may create risks around confidentiality, infringement of proprietary rights and data, and submission of inaccurate or misleading reviews.

JIPE takes a developmental approach to articles, providing constructive feedback, particularly to authors who may have had limited experience publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Our goal is to foster constructive feedback. While we are committed to a high level of academic rigour, we also recognize that many authors submitting to the journal may be new to the peer-review process. In that light, reviews should be written in a collegial and supportive tone, with an eye toward making the final product the best it can possibly be.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the principal strengths, weaknesses and points of consideration of the manuscript. We ask that reviewers provide specific and constructive suggestions in their feedback. Reviewers may share confidential remarks to the editor that will not be shared with the author(s) of the manuscript.

Once revisions are requested and made, the original reviewers may be asked to review the revised version to determine whether the authors have sufficiently addressed the concerns.

Once revisions have been reviewed, JIPE will make one of the following recommendations:

• accept the paper for publication,
• request another round of peer review, or
• reject the submission.

Reviewers are encouraged to read the following articles, which contain valuable advice on the process of peer-review.

• Take the free PKP course, "Becoming a Reviewer"
• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)'s Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
• Ten tips for a truly terrible peer review by Burt Blocken
• Top tips for peer reviewers by Wiley

• Updating your Profile (add your reviewing interests)
• Accepting Your Role as Reviewer on JIPE
• Review Request Form

JIPE gratefully acknowledges the efforts of our reviewers.

Reviewer Recognition

Our journal management software can push review details to a reviewer’s ORCID profile to give reviewers public credit for their work. Reviewers must connect their ORCID manually from their Public Profile by using the “Create or Connect your ORCID iD” button. Instructions on this process can be found on PKP's documentation guide, Authors can connect their ORCID iDs to their OJS accounts.

If you would like to receive a reviewer certificate for your records, please reach out to the editorial team at humberpress@humber.ca.

Authors who have benefited from the peer review process should consider becoming peer reviewers as a part of their professional responsibilities.

Engaging as a reviewer provides numerous benefits, including:

• reciprocating for reviews of your own work,
• keeping up to date with the latest research trends in your field,
• ensuring the quality & integrity of research published in your field, and
• improving your writing and editing skills.

Please register on jipe.ca then select the role of a reviewer in the options provided. Please include your reviewer interests. If you already have an account with JIPE, you can login to update your profile—read the Updating your Profile document on how to update your profile and include your reviewing interests.

Alternatively, please reach out to us at humberpress@humber.ca with your interest.