The Multinational Finance Journal (MFJ) follows a double-blind peer review process aiming at publishing high-quality research papers for the journal. The double-blind peer review also ensures that the reviewers and the author(s) are not known to each other. The Editors-in-Chief will initially assess suitability of all submissions for publication in the MFJ. Only submissions that will pass the initial ‘suitability test’ will be sent for peer review. Independent reports from at least two reviewers will be sought. In line with the Editorial Philosophy MFJ reviewers should provide instructive comments with a focus on improvement rather than being exclusively evaluative.

Layout of the review report: Reviewers are provided with a predesigned review form, which they need to use to write the review report. The review form consists of sections such as ‘‘Additional comments to the author(s)’’, ‘‘Comments for the Editor-in-Chief’’ and ‘‘Overall evaluation of the paper’’.

Additional comments to the author(s): While evaluating the article and providing additional comments for the author(s), the reviewer is requested to address the following issues:

• Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
• Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
• Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
• Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
• Practicality and/or Research Implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
• Quality: Is the manuscript free of mistakes and inconsistencies? If not, can the manuscript be turned into a high-quality paper in reasonable time if the mistakes and/or inconsistencies are removed?
• Clarity: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

Recommendation: The reviewer is requested to make one of the following recommendations to Editors-in-Chief:

• Accept: If a paper is acceptable, please explain the reason(s) thereof in the ‘‘Comments for the Editor-in-Chief’’ section of the review form and put a ‘tick’ (√) in the box beside ‘‘Accept’’ in the ‘‘Overall evaluation of the paper’’ section. In line with the Editorial Philosophy, which emphasizes the academic development of the manuscript, we do not anticipate that reviewers will recommend the acceptance of a manuscript after the first review.
• Minor revisions: If a manuscript is acceptable with minor revision, please provide the minor comments for improving the paper in the ‘‘Comments for the Editor-in-Chief’’ section of the review form and put a ‘tick’ (√) in the box beside ‘‘Minor revision’’ in the ‘‘Overall evaluation of the paper’’ section.
• Major revision: If a manuscript requires a substantial revision in order to be accepted, please provide specific suggestions about what is required for the paper to become publishable in the ‘‘Comments for the Editor-in-Chief’’ section of the review form and put a ‘tick’ (√) in the box beside ‘‘Major revision’’ in the ‘‘Overall evaluation of the paper’’ section.
• Reject: If a paper is unacceptable, please explain the reason(s) thereof in the ‘‘Comments for the Editor-in-Chief’’ section of the review form and put a ‘tick’ (√) in the box beside ‘‘Reject’’ in the ‘‘Overall evaluation of the paper’’ section.

Conflict of Interest: The reviewer should abstain from reviewing a paper if a potential conflict of interest exists. A conflict of interest may emerge if the reviewer is involved in research that directly competes with the submitted paper or if the author is a current or former coauthor, a colleague, or a former supervisor or student. The reviewer is requested to contact the editorial team of the MFJ should there arise any doubts about the conflict of interest. 

Deadline for submitting the report: Reviewers are asked to send their reports within 6 weeks from the date of accepting the review invitation in order to ensure prompt yet in-depth review. They should email the report either in MS Word or PDF format to the administrative manager of the MFJ at mfj@uwasa.fi.

Collaborative process: The review process is collaborative, which indicates that both parties (the editorial team of the MFJ and reviewers) can contact each other should the need for clarification of an issue arise.