The Journal of “Economic Sustainability and Business Practices” values integrity in evaluating papers and prioritises a robust peer review system to ensure the competence of each reviewer. It consistently works to expand its pool of external reviewers by encouraging editorial board members and current reviewers to recommend qualified individuals who have a reputable standing within the scientific community, aligning with the journal’s goals and scope. The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with relevant information that aids in making a fair, evidence-based decision consistent with the journal’s editorial standards. Review reports are also designed to help authors improve their papers to meet publication acceptance criteria. If a recommendation is made to reject a paper, the accompanying report should clearly outline the critical weaknesses of the research. This constructive feedback is intended to assist authors in preparing their manuscript for submission to another journal.
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review method and emphasises preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Before starting the review process, reviewers should familiarise themselves with the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, as well as the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC), which serve as a comprehensive framework that defines basic principles and standards, which all reviewers are required to follow during the review process.
The primary objective of the review is to provide editors with an expert assessment of the manuscript’s validity and quality. Additionally, the review aims to give authors constructive feedback to improve their papers and make them suitable for publication in the journal. When evaluating the article, the reviewer should consider the following aspects.
Content Quality and Originality
- Novelty and Interest. Does the article present sufficient novelty and interest to warrant publication?
- Contribution to Knowledge. Does it offer valuable insights that contribute to the existing body of knowledge?
- Adherence to Standards. Does the article comply with the journal’s standards?
- Research Question Significance. Is the research question significant within the field?
- Originality Assessment. Evaluate the originality by considering its standing in the relevant percentile and conducting a literature search using resources like Scopus or Web of Science.
- Previous Coverage. If the research has been previously addressed, please provide references to the editor.
Structure, logic and content
- Title. Does the title of the article correspond to its content?
- Abstract. Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
- Introduction. Does the author describe his goals and identify the problem he is researching? Does it describe the relevance of the study by summarising existing research?
- Method (for research papers). Does the author explain the data collection method? Is the logic and structure of the study correct? Are methods explained, especially new ones? Is the study sample sufficient? Are the tools and approaches adequately described?
- Results. Is the description of the results clear and logical? Are the statistical results correct? If there is any uncertainty about the statistics, this should be reported to the editor. Conclusions about the results should not be included in this section.
- Conclusion/Discussion. How do the results relate to expectations and previous research? Do the results agree with or contradict previous research? Is the contribution of the obtained results to the development of the researched theory, field, etc. described?
- Tables, Graphs, Images. Are they relevant, high-quality, transparent, reflect correctly obtained data and are easily interpreted?
The journal utilises a structured reviewer form to guide reviewers in aligning with publication standards and improving the peer review process. The form is divided into two sections:
Comments to the Editor
The comments provided by the reviewer to the editor are strictly confidential and intended solely for the editorial team. These remarks will not be directly shared with the authors, though the editors may choose to paraphrase or reference them in their communication. Reviewers are encouraged to use this section to clearly articulate their overall recommendation for the manuscript—whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Additionally, reviewers can discuss the severity of any key weaknesses identified and assess the feasibility of addressing them. This section also serves as a space for reviewers to share other reasons that might support or oppose the paper’s publication and any confidential questions, concerns, or opinions about the manuscript. To maintain focus and avoid redundancy, reviewers should avoid copying the same material into the Comments to the Editor and Comments to Authors sections. This ensures that the editor-focused comments remain concentrated on factors critical to the editorial decision-making.
Comments to the Authors
The comments provided by the reviewer to the authors are meant for both the authors and the editors. These comments must offer a critical yet constructive review, conveyed thoughtfully and impartially. These comments should not reveal the reviewer’s confidential recommendation regarding the paper’s acceptance, revision, or rejection, nor should they indicate the reviewer’s personal opinion on whether the paper should be published. The final decision regarding the paper’s status—whether it will be accepted, revised, or rejected—rests with the editors, not the reviewers. The authors and editors rely on the reviewer to identify the most significant issues, highlighting the key reasons behind the reviewer’s suggestions for improvement or changes to the manuscript.
Recommendation
The reviewer’s recommendation regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript should be based primarily on the scientific content’s key strengths and major weaknesses, rather than solely on the quality of the writing. This recommendation should align with the reviewer’s detailed comments on the manuscript. When identifying significant deficiencies, it is crucial for the reviewer to evaluate whether these issues are potentially fixable. For instance, major study design flaws may be severe and unfixable, which could lead the reviewer to recommend rejection. On the other hand, substantial problems such as using an inappropriate statistical test in the primary analysis might be correctable if the authors can revise and resubmit their manuscript.
The potential fixability of major weaknesses should be a key consideration in the reviewer’s decision-making process. It’s important to note that significant weaknesses do not automatically justify rejection if they can be addressed and corrected. When the reviewer is uncertain about whether major issues can be fixed, recommending a major revision may be appropriate, allowing the authors to resolve these concerns. Reviewers should ensure that issues identified as “major” genuinely represent significant weaknesses. Conversely, minor weaknesses or problems, by themselves, are rarely sufficient grounds for rejecting a manuscript.
If a study tackles an important question or tests an intriguing hypothesis and is well-designed and well-executed, it can be valuable even if the results are null. Automatically rejecting studies with null findings can introduce publication biases, skewing entire fields of research toward overly optimistic conclusions. Specifically, a bias toward publishing only positive results can create a misleading perception of the effectiveness of interventions.
Reviewers provide their suggestions and indicate one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The article is approved for publication in its original form.
- Minor Revision: The article requires minor corrections, which are specified in the review.
- Major Revision: Significant revisions to the article’s content are necessary, with recommendations for improvement provided in the review.
- Reject: The article is rejected based on reasons detailed in the review. These may include a lack of alignment with the journal’s scope or relevance to its intended audience, detection of plagiarism, breaches of ethical publication standards, issues with formatting and structural adherence, inadequate data presentation that impedes comprehension or replication, overreliance on outdated references or excessive self-citations, poor writing quality, or the use of complex or inaccurate logic and data.
Reviewers are required to submit a Referee Report with constructive suggestions and recommendations promptly.
Revisions
When the Editorial Office invites authors to revise and resubmit a manuscript, the journal requests a cover letter to accompany the revised submission. This cover letter should include point-by-point responses to the significant concerns raised by the reviewers and address any substantive or methodological issues highlighted as minor points.
The Editorial Decision Process
The editors make the final decision on whether to publish a submission and take into account the reviewers’ comments and their independent assessment of the manuscript.
Resolving Conflicting Reviews
When reviewers have fundamental disagreements, the editors may share all the reviews with each reviewer and request additional comments to help reach a decision. It’s important to understand that decisions are not determined solely by majority rule, as experts may have differing viewpoints. Editors carefully evaluate reviewer recommendations and comments, considering them alongside the authors’ responses and any information that might not have been available to the reviewers. The Editorial Office ensures that reviewers’ recommendations are thoroughly considered and values their contributions, even if the final decision does not align with the reviewers’ assessments.