School of Business, Economics, & Technology: Journal

• Frequency: Semi-annual (Spring & Fall)
• Focus: Practical and theoretical research in Management, Leadership, Technology, HR, and Economics
• Audience: Academics and professionals
• Standards: Peer-reviewed; meets IACBE and editorial board criteria

• Accepted: Unsolicited manuscripts in Word format
• Review: Blind peer review; final decisions by editorial board
• Submit to: jbetsubmissions@campbellsville.edu 
• Include: Cover letter with track selection
• Fee: $50 if accepted

• Fall: October 20
• Spring: February 15

A cover letter should accompany the submission and include the following information:

1. The journal track to which the paper is being submitted, Management, Leadership, Technology, Human Resources, Economics, Healthcare Management, Marketing, or Global Business.

2. A statement that the paper is not published or under review at other journals, proceedings, or other hard copy or electronic publications.

Review Policy: JBET uses a blind review process for all manuscripts. Reviews are normally completed within 45 days. JBET will evaluate submissions based on contribution and conceptual rigor. JBET will not publish manuscripts that have been submitted to, accepted by, or published in other outlets (including published conference proceedings or other electronic journals). If accepted, a $50.00 publication fee will be assessed.

Ethics Policy: It is expected that authors submitting papers to JBET will have conducted their work in an ethical manner. General guidelines for the conduct of ethical research are available at

The Journal of Business, Economics and Technology Online holds the copyright on all manuscripts published in the Journal. Permission to reprint must be obtained from the Journal Editor(s).

To request permission to reprint a manuscript published in JBET, contact jbetsubmissions@campbellsville.edu.

All manuscripts must be written in English and submitted as a Word document. The document should not contain page numbers. The document should be in 12 Point Times New Roman font with 1″ margins all around, and should contain the following material in the prescribed order.

1. Page 1: Title of Article and Author Contact Information. The title of the article should be centered, bold, and all caps. Author contact information should include the author's university affiliation, current position, mailing address, e-mail, and phone number (double space between authors).

2. Page 2: Abstract. Start with the title “Abstract” centered, bold, initial caps. This should be followed by the abstract text (250 - 500 words) typed in single space. Left justify all paragraphs, with no indent, and double space between paragraphs.

3. Pages 3 and following: Title and Body of Paper. Enter the title again, centered and bolded, with initial caps. Double space after the title and proceed with the body of the paper. The body of the paper should be left justified and single-spaced with no indentations at the start of each paragraph. Double space between paragraphs. Major section headings should be centered, bolded; with initial caps. Subsection headings should be on a separate line and be left justified, bolded, with initial caps. Subsequent subheadings should be in bold italics on the same line as the text. All tables and figures should be included in the body of the paper.

4. Figures: Tables and figures should be placed within the text, not at the end of the manuscript. The headings for Tables and Figures should start with the term “Table” or “Figure” centered and bolded. Double-space after the heading. Tables should be numbered and figures should be alphabetized (e.g., Table 1; Figure A). The descriptive title for the table or figure should be centered and bolded two spaces below the heading. Tables should be centered on the page and have proper labeling of column headings, and other notations. Tables should be created with the Table function of Word (do not use the spacebar to create columns). Figures and artwork must be high quality JPEG or GIF files. The figure title should be typed on a separate line and should not be part of the image file.

5. Mathematical Notations: Notations should be clearly explained within the text. Equations should be centered on the page. If equations are numbered, type the number in parentheses flush with the right margin. Unusual symbols and Greek letters should be identified. Equations that may be too wide to fit in a single column should be provided as

an appendix. JBET is published in HTML format, which does not handle equations very well. Therefore, authors should provide a gif or jpg image file for all equations. The image file should not contain the equation number, only the equation.

6. Endnotes: Do not use footnotes, since they do not convert well to HTML format. Rather, the author should use endnotes. If endnotes are used, they should be placed after the reference section. The endnotes should be numbered.

7. Images: Images can be included in the document, but authors should also keep a separate GIF or JPEG file for all images since these will be needed for final publication.

8. References: Start the reference section immediately after the body of the paper with the title “References” centered and bolded. Each reference should be left justified and single spaced, with a double space between references. Reference citations within the text should consist of the author's last name and date of publication, without punctuation, enclosed within parentheses, and should be inserted before punctuation and/or at a logical break in the sentence. Bookmark links from the citation to a reference are preferred but not required. If several citations are needed, separate them with semicolons, and list alphabetically. Give the page number only if necessary. If the author's name has just been listed in the text, the date in parentheses is sufficient. If two or more works by an author have the same year, distinguish them by placing a, b, etc. after the year. Use et al. for works by four or more authors. For example: Jones' latest proposal (1979) has been questioned by some (Boston 1981; Brown 1990), but is generally accepted by others (Fritz 1979; Lang 1979; Rotwang 1984). Investigators (Cockburn et al. 1985; Hodges McCollum, and Hall 1981; Lee and King 1983) have found that…References should be single-spaced and placed at the end of the manuscript. Works by a single author should be listed chronologically; for multiple authors, alphabetically and then chronologically.

9. References should be in the following format:

Books:Bagozzi, Richard P. 1980. Causal Models in Marketing. New York: Wiley.

Journals: Singh, Jagdip. 1991. “Understanding the Structure of Consumers' Satisfaction Evaluations of Service Delivery.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (Summer): 223-244.

Multiple Authors: Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1993. “The Nature and Determinants of Customer Experiences of Service.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (Winter): 1-12.

Article in a Book Edited by Another Author: Levitt, Theodore. 1988. “The Globalization of Markets.” In Multinational Marketing Management. Eds. Robert D. Buzzell and John A. Quelch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 186-205.

Unpublished Dissertations: Paterson, Karen S. 1985. “The Effects of Bilingual Labels in Buyer Behavior.” Dissertation. University of California at Irvine.

10. Appendices: If needed, the appendix should start with the title “Appendix” centered and bolded. If there are multiple appendices, each should be lettered (e.g., Appendix A).

ALL STAGES OF THE REVIEW ARE ELECTRONIC! You will be solicited by e-mail, you should acknowledge by e-mail, and you should send your review to the editor by e-mail.

Once you agree to be a reviewer for JBET, the editor will transmit a copy of the manuscript to you by e-mail.

Keep a copy of the review documents for future use in the event that the authors resubmit a revised manuscript.

JBET has instituted a blind review process. The main purpose of the system is to reduce perceived bias in the review process. The editor handling a particular manuscript will know the names of the authors but the reviewers will not. In actual implementation, we ask authors to supply us with manuscripts not having any identifying marks. There will always be cases where it is impossible to preserve anonymity, but we ask authors to make a best effort.

We ask that all reviews be completed within four to six weeks. If more time is needed please let the editor know when you expect to complete the review. A less comprehensive review in shorter time will often be more useful than a delayed one.

We nearly always send reports from reviewers verbatim to authors. Please express your criticisms with civility. Papers can be strongly criticized without undue harshness. Specific criticisms are preferred to broad statements. Please acknowledge whatever is good in the manuscript.

We never disclose the names of reviewers to authors, even when the reviewers explicitly permit such disclosures. You should regard a submitted manuscript as a confidential document. You should not use or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the permission of the authors. Since there is no direct communication between authors and reviewers concerning a manuscript, that permission can only be obtained via the Editor.

Initial Review Comments to the Editor.

NOTE: The tone of the “Comments” should reflect the philosophy that the reviewer is a colleague to the author who will help the author bring the manuscript to publication. Thus, your responsibility to assist the author to communicate ideas central to the study by providing specific constructive criticism. No scholarly effort deserves hypercritical or rude comments, such as “The author clearly does not know what reliability is.” If in your judgment a manuscript is poorly researched, poorly written, or poorly documented, write a critique that will uncover the weaknesses but also guide the author toward an acceptable revision or to an understanding of why the paper was not accepted. Take into consideration that your comments to the author will be read by the Editor, the author, and another reviewer during the second review.

Select one of the four options that reflects your evaluation:

Unable to review due to excessive mechanical errors. The manuscript will be returned to author/s for corrections.

Publish with minor revisions. This refers to a manuscript that has effectively presented a study that makes a significant contribution to the field of business administration.

Minor revision: This refers to a situation when a portion of the manuscript needs more attention, such as providing additional documentation, expanding the discussion of the findings, including key related studies, providing additional details for the purposes of replication, or when the revision will be fairly routine, such as a reduction in overall length. This choice indicates that you, as the reviewer, believe the nature of the minor revisions is such that they can be negotiated between Author/s and Editorial Staff without further involvement of reviewers. The manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.

Major revision. This pertains to a situation when more than one section of the manuscript needs attention or when extensive rewriting will be required. Examples of the requirement for major revision include the need to place the study into a broader framework of scholarship, reanalyze the data, submit the data to additional statistical analysis, create a context for the study, or rework data that have been over-interpreted. The manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.

Reject. This applies to the manuscript with an excessive number of mechanical errors, when there is little or no hope of successful revision because of a major methodological flaw, the article is simply inappropriate for JBET, or the article has been published elsewhere. The manuscript will be returned and the author will be notified of the decision to reject.

During the second review of the manuscript, attention should be focused on whether the reviewer's initial comments/suggestions have been addressed by the authors. If revisions are satisfactory, the manuscript will be returned to the editor and the authors will be notified of acceptance for publication. If revisions are unsatisfactory, the manuscript will be returned to the editor and authors will be notified that additional revision is required.

Split Reviews. In the event that two reviewers are involved in the review process for a single manuscript, it is possible that the reviewers' evaluations may be diametrically opposed. For example, a manuscript that you believe is ready for publication with editing may be recommended for major revision or rejection by the other reviewer. In the case of split reviews, the editor may select a third reviewer to serve as a tie breaker.

Procedure for Return of Reviews. Promptly return all reviews to the editor who assigned the review to you. When retaining a copy of a manuscript for use in further reviews, it is your responsibility not to share or discuss the manuscript with anyone else. Unpublished manuscripts are the property of the author.

Thank you for your service to the profession!