Peer review process

The peer review process is fundamental to the publication of scholarly work, serve ensuring that submitted papers adhere to the standards of the field while providing authors with valuable feedback and constructive insights that ultimately enhance the quality of their papers. The Editorial Board invites the Reviewer Board to assess articles in accordance with their specific scientific expertise. Members of the Editorial Board may also serve as reviewers. However, personnel from the Editorial Office, including managing and technical editors, do not participate in the review process or hold decision-making authority over submitted papers.

The journal “Economic Sustainability and Business Practices” utilizes a double-blind peer review system, typically lasting up to three months. The review process involves several key stages:

1. Submission: The corresponding author submits the manuscript along with a co-author-signed cover letter to the Editorial Office. The Managing Editor evaluates the submission to ensure alignment with the journal’s focus and the Instructions for Authors and adherence to necessary formatting and style requirements. This stage also includes a plagiarism check using StrikePlagiarism. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be rejected.

2. Internal Review: The Editor-in-Chief conducts an assessment to determine the manuscript’s appropriateness, quality, significance, and originality. Based on this evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to advance the paper to the next phase or reject it. Rejected manuscripts will not be further reviewed, and authors cannot resubmit for reconsideration. Initial decisions on manuscripts are typically made within three weeks.

3. Appointing Responsible Editor and Reviewers: If the paper passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief appoints a Responsible Editor from among the section editors. This editor is tasked with selecting suitable peer reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field. The Responsible Editor then sends the manuscript for double-blind peer review, which usually involves two reviewers, or more in special cases. Maintaining the double-blind format, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous during the evaluation.

4. Peer Review: Reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest, validate their subject matter expertise, and understand the specific review criteria. They may decline requests to review an article if needed. If reviewers agree, they must promptly submit a Referee Report with constructive feedback and recommendations. Meanwhile, the Editorial Office informs the author that their manuscript is under double-blind peer review. Reviewers then indicate one of the following decisions in their reports:

  • Accept: The article is accepted for publication without modifications.
  • Minor Revision: The article requires minor corrections as noted in the review.
  • Major Revision: Significant changes are necessary; recommendations for substantial improvements are provided in the review.
  • Reject: The article is rejected for reasons specified in the review, such as misalignment with the journal’s scope, plagiarism, ethical breaches, formatting issues, poor data presentation, reliance on outdated references or excessive self-citations, inadequate writing quality, and flawed logic or data.

5. Revision: The Responsible Editor facilitates communication between authors and reviewers to improve the paper based on feedback. Authors have the opportunity to revise their manuscript by addressing suggestions from the reviewers and the Responsible Editor. The corresponding author is responsible for resubmitting the revised paper, accompanied by a document responding to the reviewers’ comments, addressing all points raised. Authors are encouraged to present their arguments if they hold differing views from the reviewers. It is important to note that the Editorial Board does not necessarily endorse the opinions and conclusions presented in articles; authors are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their information, including titles, data, names, and quotes. The Responsible Editors and Editorial Office manage interactions with reviewers and authors during the revision phase.

6. Decision: After the review process, the Responsible Editor communicates the outcomes and their decision to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision regarding publication acceptance. Authors receive feedback along with anonymous Referee Reports if deemed necessary. They have the opportunity to appeal the Editor-in-Chief’s decision by presenting their arguments and clarifications. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors are informed of the decision. Accepted papers proceed to the production phase for publication.

7. Production and Publication: Upon acceptance, the publication process begins. All co-authors are required to sign the Authors’ Agreement for the publication of the revised manuscript.

Share this page on social media

Cite the article

__title_article_for_citate__

BibTeX
RIS
APA
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Vancouver
Chicago

Share on social media

__title_article_for_share__