Virtus InterPress

Feedback from the reviewers

In this section we provide feedback from the researchers who serve as reviewers for our journals. This page will be continuously updated.

  • Dr. Tom Cronje, Professor, Curtin Business School, Australia: “Requests for the reviewing of papers are conducted by way of direct communication between the editor and the relevant reviewer. I believe it is efficient. Information about aspects to be considered by the reviewer are provided describing the major issues of the paper, including the conceptual fundamentals, literature review, research framework (if any) and paper results (conclusion) and general advice to accept the paper (with additional revision or not) or to be rejected." A Virtus Interpress document to be completed with the comments of the reviewer is also provided. It confirms overall acceptable reviewer standards. Paper manuscripts are anonymous, therefore assisting reviewer objectivity.”
  • Dr Konstantinos Sergakis, Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Glasgow, UK: “I have the great pleasure to cooperate with the Journal since autumn 2015 in my capacity as reviewer of manuscripts submitted for publication. The communications with the Editor of the journal have always been excellent and efficient as well as his responsiveness. The reviewing process is very rigorous and the standards satisfactory for maintaining the necessary level of quality of the published papers. The reviewers’ report has been made available to me in a timely manner and contains an important series of factors, ensuring the overall quality of the journal: more specifically, I have been asked to write a report of 150-300 words describing the major issues of the paper including the conceptual fundamentals, the literature review, the research framework (if any) and the paper results (conclusion) and general advise to accept the paper (with additional revision or not) or to be rejected. As an overall impression, I find my collaboration with the Journal very fruitful and satisfactory and I hope to keep on offering reviewer support in the future.”
  • Dr. Patricia Lindelwa Makoni, UNISA, South Africa: “The turnaround time allocated to process manuscripts is reasonable, resulting in the high and reputable quality of articles published by the journal. I would not hesitate to recommend this journal to young, and upcoming researchers, as well as established academics. It covers an array of business-related topics, and has a wide-reaching readership.”
  • Dr. Anupam Dutta, University of Vaasa, Finland: “As an author, I always have nice experiences with the Corporate Ownership & Control journal. Whenever, I submit my paper to this journal, I receive quick responses from the Editor. One advantage of this journal is that the reviewing process is quite fast. However, quite fast reviewing process does not mean that the quality of the report is not that good. In fact, I am always a recipient of quality reviews.”
  • Dr. Geeorgia Kontogeorga, University of Patras, Greece: “As far as my first impressions concerns as a new reviewer of the journal, these are very positive. The responsiveness of both the Editor and reviewers is immediate and fast as possible. As a result, authors are not obliged to wait too long, but they have prompt response concerning their manuscript. The reviewing process is rapid, however fulfill high quality standards. In general, I feel very happy that I can contribute to this serious and remarkable effort. As a team, we will strive to upgrade the quality of our journal in the future. Ι would like to reassure our readers that we do our best in order to become an essential contributor in the science of audit and control.”
  • Dr. Ewa Banasik, Swinburne University, Australia: “As a reviewer, I found communicating with Alexander Kostyuk, the editor of Corporate Ownership and Control Journal, very easy compared to other journals. I was able to communicate with Alexander via email and his responses to my emails and queries were immediate. I preferred this method of contact to the way it is usually handled by other journals, which is through their websites.”
  • Dr. Maria Teresa Bianchi, Italy: "I’m very pleased to collaborate with the Journal since Autumn 2015. As a reviewer, I communicated with the editor of Corporate Ownership and Control Journal very easily. The reviewing process is quite fast and it has a good quality level of standards. Information about aspects to be considered by the reviewer are indicated considering the major issues of the paper. Paper is anonymous so the review is objective. I hope to continue my support in the future."
  • Dr. Trish Bradbury, New Zealand: "In 2015 I was asked to be a reviewer for the Journal, which I happily accepted. Communication with the Journal editor and the ease with which the reviewing process was presented made my decision to accept straightforward. The Editor was quick enough to respond to my queries and provide the requested information. The reviewers’ report was short and also completed with ease."
  • Dr. Raef Gouiaa, Professor, Département des sciences comptables, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada: "I want to express my great satisfaction regarding the reviewing process in which I participated. I found the process both effective and efficient. The reviewing process is effective because it allows evaluating objectively the paper through a blind review process. It is also based on relevant scientific criteria for assessing the paper and its contribution. The Editor of the journal gave me a reasonable time frame to evaluate the paper and write a report of about 300 words, describing the major issues of the paper including the conceptual fundamentals, literature review, research framework, paper results and conclusion and general advise to accept the paper (with additional revision or not) or to reject it. The reviewing process is efficient because it allows the reviewer to communicate directly with the Editor of the Journal for any questions regarding the paper and the reviewing process which saves a lot of time. The Editor’s great responsiveness allows faster publication of relevant and validated articles on current business research topics. Overall, I enjoyed my cooperation with Corporate Ownership and Control Journal as reviewer."
  • Dr. Patrizia Pastore, University of Calabria, Italy: “The review process is a vital part of the quality control mechanism used to determine what is published and what is not. I have the honour to cooperate as a reviewer for the Corporate Ownership and Control Journal. I greatly appreciate that the review process is collaborative. Editor and reviewers work together to maximize the quality of published research. On the one hand, Editor provides explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality and timeliness of the reviews. On the other hand, reviewers are asked to submit a review report providing constructive comments to bring the final paper to its best possible quality. The review process takes time and commitment however the editor has defined clear rules that streamline the process as much as possible, allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews and requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer. The whole review process is facilitated by the possibility to communicate very easily (via email) and quickly with the editor.
  • Dr. Martin Stawinoga, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Germany: “In Autumn 2015 I accepted the invitation as a reviewer of manuscripts submitted for publication in Corporate Ownership and Control. The communication with the editor is excellent and the responses to my queries are very quick. The reviewing process is based upon a good quality level of standard and results in a report describing the major issues of the paper and giving recommendations to the authors. The reviewing process is quite fast, so that authors receive a structured result from the reviewers shortly after their submission. I am looking forward to continue my support to Corporate Ownership and Control in the future.
  • Dr. Andy Jia-Yuh Yeh, National Taiwan University, Taiwan: “My email communication with the Editor, the Editor-in-Chief was reasonably smooth and collegial. He was highly responsive to my requests and questions. His collegiality and professionalism were particularly helpful for a fresh journal referee like me. The peer review process was double-blind to ensure that as academic referees we adhere to the conventional ethical standards for high-quality academic publications such as Corporate Ownership and Control. At any rate, I would welcome the opportunity to help referee submissions to Corporate Ownership and Control in close collaboration with the Editor again in the future.
  • Dr. Maria Joao Guedes, Professor, ISEG, University of Lisboa, Portugal: "I have started to collaborate with “Corporate Ownership and Control Journal” recently. The reviewing process was smooth, blind and fast. I was given a reasonable deadline to review the paper in order to keep the process fast but still at high levels of quality. The reviewing request covers the most important aspects that a reviewing report should contain: the novelty of the topic, the extension and quality of the contribution, the quality of the literature review and the quality of the results. The communication with the Editor was prompt."
  • Dr. Niels Hermes, Professor, RUG, Netherlands: "The communication with the Editor of the journal was very good. I received an email directly from the editor asking for a review of a paper, which was attached. In the email guidelines were given with respect to how to review the paper. These guidelines were clear. The email also mentioned the deadline for submitting the review. I always like this. After submitting the review, I received a reaction from the editor within 24 hours, thanking me for the review."
  • Dr. Jesus Salas, Professor, Lehigh University, USA: "My communication with the journal has been very easy and straightforward. I knew exactly what I needed to do and the deadline for my review. The editor was quick in responding to my correspondence. The reviewing process is very clear and fair to all involved. The paper I reviewed was of fair quality by people who definitely know the literature. This makes my job as reviewer much easier."
  • Doriana Cucinelli, PhD, Professor, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italy: “I have the great pleasure to cooperate with the Journal. The communications with the journal is direct and the Editor writes directly to me. I think that this method is appreciable because I can chat directly with the Editor and the answers to my questions are very quickly. The reviewing process is rigorous and the delivery time are accurate and well define. I believe that this method is a very good, both for reviewers and for writers that submit the papers to this Journal. I hope to keep on offering reviewer support in the future”.
  • Dr. Nulla, Arab Open University, Kuwait: "My experience as a Reviewer with the prestigious Corporate Ownership and Control journal had been overwhelming and a learning journey for me. I found the review process transparent and prompt. The chief editor, Professor Dr. Alexander Kostyuk, instructions were clear and had a deadline. The review feedback required were extensive and in-depth. The quality of articles I had received for review in the past varies with the nature of management topic chosen by the authors. Overall, I had enjoyed reviewing articles for this prestigious journal, as I had enjoyed reviewing many other famed business journals".
  • Dr. Andrea Sacco Ginevri, Adjunct Professor of Banking and Financial Law at LINK Campus University of Rome, Italy: "I review papers for the Journal since 2015. I really appreciate the way the Journal’s bodies work. The Director communicates with reviewers in real time. Also the reviewing process is very well organized. The process is based on the blind system, and the editorial board’s members helped me in case of queries in a very efficient way. The duration of the process is shorter compared with others, and this allows to publish articles in order. I appreciate very much this experience and I wish to cooperate with the Journal also in the future”.
  • Dr. Simone Terzani, Associate Professor of Accounting, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy: "I have the honour to cooperate as a reviewer for the Corporate Ownership and Control Journal. I really appreciate the fairness of the Editor and the possibility to communicate with him very easily. The Journal gives to the reviewers a reasonable time to evaluate the paper and write a report covering the most important aspects that a reviewing report should contain. I really appreciate the constructive approach of the Editor and I hope to keep on offering my support to the Corporate Ownership and Control Journal in the future.”
  • Dr. Giuseppina Iacoviello, Associate Professor, University of Pisa, Italy: “I have started to contribute with Corporate Ownership and Control Journal lately. The chief editor is prompt in responding to my correspondence, I appreciate it. The reviewing process is quite fast and it has a good quality level of standards. The reviewing request covers the most important issues that a reviewing report should contain: the novelty of the topic chosen by the authors, the quality of the contribution, the quality of the literature review and the quality of the results. I would suggest this prestigious journal to upcoming researchers, as well as established academics.
  • Dr. Inês Lisboa, Associate Professor, ESTG, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Portugal: “I have the pleasure to cooperate with the Corporate Ownership and Control journal as a reviewer. The communication with Alexander, the editor is efficient and very easy. He is very responsiveness. The reviewer process is through email and considers the major issues of the paper ensuring the quality of the journal. The objectivity of the process is assure as the paper is anonymous. I hope to continue to cooperate with the journal in the future.”
  • Dr. S.Subramanian, Associate Professor (Strategic Management), Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, India: “The review process of papers submitted for Corporate Ownership and Control Journal is rigorous and hence challenging. And it is that academic challenge that I enjoy a lot as a reviewer of this journal. Also, the high quality of the papers sent for review, help me also to learn a lot and keep me updated about latest research trends in the field of corporate governance. Another thing that I like about the review process is that the individualized objective of the review is clearly stated by editor in his personal direct communication with reviewer. This helps to keep the review process stay focused. Also it helps in giving specific comments suitable for the paper, rather than sticking to a ‘fit for all’ review template. I would be happy to continue my association with Corporate Ownership and Control Journal in the future.”
Corporate Governance Experts Global Repository
Merio Honor Честь
Ryoushin Conscience Совесть
Kouki Nobility Доброе имя