Instructions for Reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review for Service Science. Here are suggestions that may be helpful to you as you prepare your review.

Be constructive.
Be specific. For example, if you note that the authors neglect key literature, please identify the omitted works. Similarly, if you point out that the authors analyzed the data inappropriately, please describe why the analyses were inappropriate and ideally suggest more appropriate ones.
Be sure that the content of your review is consistent with the recommendation you make to the editor. We ask that you refrain from indicating what your overall recommendation is in your comments to the authors, but those comments should be consistent with your recommendation. It is confusing to authors to receive primarily positive comments from reviewers but then learn from the editor that the paper was reviewed negatively, or vice versa. Consistency in your comments and recommendation is valuable to the editor and to authors.
Identify the major issues with the manuscript that led to your recommendation. Giving the editor and authors a sense of the major issues with the manuscript is more valuable than a long list of issues, some of which may be very minor. If you have identified minor issues, you could list them at the end of your report and label them as minor issues.
If you think there is a reasonable chance that the authors could address the issues you raise and that if they do, the contribution would be significant enough for us to publish in Service Science, please recommend a revise and resubmit decision. If you don't think that the issues could be addressed or think that even if they were, the contribution would not provide enough value added for us to publish, please recommend a rejection decision.
Most helpful reviews are usually between one and two pages in length.
Please be timely in your review. We expect to receive reviews within 42 days.

We appreciate your help in identifying and developing high-quality, innovative research for Service Science.

Remember the Golden Rule of Reviewing:

TREAT AUTHORS AS YOU WOULD WISH TO BE TREATED