Review Process
Policy.

Confidential and Independent Review

Manuscripts that pass preliminary editorial screening may be evaluated by independent scholars selected for their subject expertise, methodological competence, and ability to provide objective, constructive assessments.

The journal seeks evaluations from appropriately qualified reviewers and may request two independent reports where required for an informed editorial decision. Additional reviewers may be appointed when recommendations conflict, specialized assessment is necessary, or important concerns remain unresolved.

Manuscript files, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Reviewer identities and author-identifying information are managed according to the review mode configured for the manuscript in the journal's editorial system. Where an anonymous review model is applied, the Editorial Team must take reasonable steps to protect the identities required to remain concealed.

Core Principles of Peer Review

A Quality-Driven Review Process

The editorial workflow prioritizes scholarly quality, methodological soundness, and research integrity over publication speed. Additional evaluations, revisions, or editorial inquiries may be required where important scientific or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

Professional Review Standards

Confidentiality and Unauthorized Disclosure

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with colleagues, assistants, external individuals, or third-party services without authorization from the responsible editor. They must not contact the authors directly concerning the manuscript unless expressly authorized through an appropriate editorial arrangement.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished research data, or reviewer correspondence to external generative artificial intelligence services without explicit editorial authorization and an appropriate assessment of confidentiality, data protection, and intellectual property risks. Any permitted AI assistance must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment and ethical responsibility.

01. Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly, methodological, and ethical requirements and is suitable to proceed to copyediting and production, subject to any remaining technical or administrative requirements.

02. Minor Revisions

The manuscript is potentially acceptable but requires limited clarifications, reporting improvements, language revisions, corrections, or other relatively minor changes. The editor may assess the revised manuscript without initiating another external review round.

03. Major Revisions or Further Review

The manuscript requires substantial changes to its theoretical argument, methods, analysis, interpretation, or presentation. A revised manuscript may be sent to the original reviewers or assigned to additional experts for further assessment.

04. Reject Submission

The manuscript does not meet essential scholarly or ethical standards, falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or methodological validity, or contains major deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Editorial Authority and Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer assessments support but do not replace editorial judgment. When reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may request further clarification, commission an additional independent review, or determine an appropriate course of action based on the scientific evidence and the journal's editorial standards. A positive recommendation does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

The journal encourages timely editorial handling and constructive peer-review feedback. Reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluations within two weeks (14 days), consistent with the journal's Reviewer Guide, unless a different schedule is agreed upon with the responsible editor.

The complete period from manuscript submission to editorial decision may vary according to the availability of suitable reviewers, complexity of the study, number of review rounds, extent of revisions, author response times, and editorial workload.

The Editorial Team may extend review deadlines or appoint replacement reviewers when necessary. Authors will be informed of substantive editorial decisions and requests for revision through the journal's official communication system.

Important Timeline Clarification

The fourteen-day target concerns an individual review assignment and does not constitute a guarantee that the entire editorial process will be completed within fourteen days. Manuscript acceptance and publication dates depend on successful completion of all applicable editorial, ethical, and production requirements.

Reviewer and Editor Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose circumstances that could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise their impartiality, including financial interests, professional collaborations, institutional relationships, academic rivalry, or personal connections. Individuals with significant unmanaged conflicts should be excluded or recused from the relevant evaluation.

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts should carefully consider the reviewers' and editor's feedback and prepare a detailed response addressing each substantive comment.

Example of a Reviewer Response

Reviewer Comment: The manuscript does not sufficiently explain the sampling procedure or justify the selected sample size.

Author Response: Thank you for this constructive comment. We have revised the Research Methods section to clarify the sampling strategy, eligibility criteria, and rationale for the sample size. These revisions are presented in Section 3 of the revised manuscript.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a substantive factual error, relevant procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or a serious misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals should identify the manuscript, the decision in question, the specific grounds for reconsideration, and any relevant supporting evidence. Disagreement with an unfavorable reviewer recommendation, without further substantive justification, does not automatically establish grounds for an appeal.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor may review the appeal, consult additional experts, or reassess the manuscript where warranted. A reviewer or editor directly implicated in a relevant conflict should not independently determine the outcome of the complaint.

The journal seeks to handle appeals fairly and transparently. Reconsideration does not guarantee reversal of a previous editorial decision.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017. International principles concerning reviewer confidentiality, objectivity, competence, conflicts of interest, and responsible manuscript evaluation.

Public Knowledge Project (PKP)

Learning Open Journal Systems: Editorial Workflow, Reviewer Assignment, Review Rounds, Manuscript Revisions, and Editorial Decisions.

Escalate: Economics and Business Journal

Reviewer Guide: Official journal instructions concerning reviewer responsibilities, manuscript evaluation, timeliness, confidentiality, and ethical conduct.