Guide for reviewers
As a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing knowledge in economics and finance, the integrity and quality of our publications rely heavily on the expert evaluations provided by our reviewers. The thoughtful and constructive feedback helps ensure that the journal continues to publish high-quality research that makes valuable contributions to the academic community.
Role of the Reviewer
As a reviewer, your primary role is to evaluate the submitted manuscript’s quality, originality, methodology, and relevance to the field of economics and finance. Your feedback is essential for determining whether the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for publication. Reviewers are also asked to provide recommendations on how the manuscript can be improved, whether through revisions or additional analyses, while ensuring the process remains objective, fair, and thorough.
Confidentiality
The peer review process is confidential. Manuscripts and any related materials provided for review must not be shared or discussed with others, except as authorized by the editorial team. Similarly, reviewers should not use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to the following key criteria:
- Originality and Contribution: Does the paper present new ideas, methods, or findings that make a meaningful contribution to the field of economics and finance? Is the research topic significant and timely?
- Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written? Are the arguments and findings presented logically, and are the ideas easily understandable for the target audience?
- Methodology and Analysis: Are the research methods appropriate and rigorously applied? Is the analysis sound and based on appropriate data? Are the conclusions well-supported by the evidence presented?
- Relevance: Does the paper address important, contemporary issues in economics and finance? Is the scope of the research broad enough to appeal to a wide readership?
- References and Literature Review: Does the manuscript engage with relevant literature in the field? Are the references up to date and appropriate for the research being presented?
- Presentation of Results: Are the results clearly presented, with appropriate tables, figures, and statistical analysis? Are any limitations or assumptions acknowledged?
Review Process
The review process follows a double-blind peer review model, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. As a reviewer, you should provide detailed and constructive comments that help the authors improve their manuscript. While your comments will be shared with the authors, please avoid personal remarks and focus on the scientific and academic content of the paper.
Recommendation: After reviewing the manuscript, you will be asked to provide a recommendation. Possible recommendations include:
- Accept as is
- Minor revisions
- Major revisions
- Reject
Please provide clear justification for your recommendation. If you suggest revisions, please be as specific as possible, outlining the areas where improvements are needed.
Constructive Feedback
When providing feedback to authors, please ensure that it is both respectful and constructive. Your goal is to help the authors improve their manuscript, so make sure your comments are clear and actionable. Avoid overly critical or dismissive language, and focus on specific points that could strengthen the manuscript.
If the manuscript is not suitable for publication, provide a well-reasoned explanation for why it should be rejected. If revisions are needed, suggest specific improvements that would enhance the quality of the work.
Time Commitment
We understand that reviewing can be time-consuming. We kindly ask that you complete your review within the specified timeframe (usually 2-3 weeks). If you are unable to meet the deadline or feel that you are not sufficiently qualified to review the manuscript, please inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
Ethical Considerations
As a reviewer, you are expected to act with the highest level of integrity. Avoid conflicts of interest, such as reviewing manuscripts from colleagues, collaborators, or competitors. If you have any concerns about potential conflicts of interest, please disclose them to the editorial team before agreeing to review.
Reviewer Recognition
We highly value the contributions of our reviewers and acknowledge your efforts in maintaining the quality of the journal. All reviewers will be listed in the acknowledgements section of the journal, and we will provide certificates of appreciation for those who contribute significantly to the journal’s success.
Feedback to the Editorial Team
If you have any feedback about the review process, the manuscript submission system, or the journal itself, please do not hesitate to share it with the editorial team. We are committed to improving the quality of the journal and the experience for both authors and reviewers.