Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to independent journals of economics go through six main stages of the editorial process: Submission, Initial Check, Peer Review, Final Check, Editing & Proofreading, and Publication.

During the Initial Check stage, the Editorial Team checks the manuscript for its alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope, compliance with submission requirements, completeness of required components, compliance with Author Guidelines, and similarity check results. Manuscripts that do not meet the initial requirements may be returned to the author for revision or rejected before proceeding to the peer review process. Manuscripts that pass this stage will proceed to the peer review process.

 

Independent journals of economics employ double-blind peer review. Each manuscript entering the peer review process is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's field of study. Additional reviewers may be appointed if necessary.

Reviewers are selected primarily based on their expertise relevant to the manuscript's field of study, their track record of recent scientific publications, their methodological competence, their institutional independence, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Preference may also be given to reviewers with a verifiable scientific profile, such as a Scopus Author ID, Web of Science Researcher Profile, ORCID, or Google Scholar, or who have previously been the First Author or Corresponding Author of an article published in an independent journal of economics. These supporting criteria do not replace the primary requirements of reviewer expertise, competence, and independence.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality and scientific contribution, methodological rigor, sufficiency of evidence, quality of analysis and interpretation, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope. All manuscripts and review materials must be treated confidentially, and reviewers must adhere to the Statement of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice, the Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests Policy, and the Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.

If revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript and submit an Author(s) Response Form explaining how the Editor's and Reviewer's comments have been addressed. The revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the Editor and/or returned to the Reviewer if necessary.

After the necessary revisions are completed, the manuscript will undergo a Final Check to ensure that the Reviewer's comments have been adequately addressed and that the manuscript meets the scientific, editorial, and ethical requirements for submission to an independent journal of economics. Additional revisions or further peer review may be requested if necessary.

The Editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the Reviewer's report, the Author's revisions, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and applicable editorial and ethical requirements. Reviewer recommendations are considered. The publisher does not intervene in editorial decisions, which remain the responsibility of the Editorial Team.

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to the Editing & Proofreading stage, followed by review and approval of the galley proof by the Author. Subsequent articles may be published as Articles in Press before being placed in their scheduled issue.

Content Not Subject to Standard Peer Review

Not all published content is subject to the standard double-blind peer review process. Editorial Notes, Introductions, or other introductory content published as part of a publication are generally reviewed and approved internally by the Editor and do not undergo external peer review.

Editorial and post-publication notices, including Corrections, Erratums, Corrigendums, Expressions of Concern, Retractions, Article Removals, and Article Replacements, may undergo editorial evaluation, research integrity, technical, legal, and/or independent expert judgment, as appropriate to the nature of the case.

Comments and Criticisms and Author Responses may undergo peer review if they contain substantive scientific arguments, new data, analyses, methodological assessments, or technical claims that require independent scientific evaluation.