The journal applies a double-anonymized peer review model, under which authors do not know the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with any information identifying the authors of the manuscript.
The procedure consists of the two stages: initial editorial screening and scientific peer review.
- Initial Editorial Screening
At the preliminary stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript for:
- compliance with the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
- adherence to manuscript preparation requirements (Manuscript Preparation Guidelines);
- completeness of submission materials (Manuscript Submission);
- compliance with the principles of academic integrity (text originality, disclosure of AI use, declaration of conflicts of interest, etc.).
The originality of the text is verified using the Turnitin plagiarism detection system.
If the manuscript does not meet these requirements, it may be returned to the author for revision or rejected without external review (desk rejection).
- Scientific Peer Review
Prior to external review, the editorial team ensures that the manuscript contains no information that could identify the author(s). All identifying details, including names and affiliations, are removed.
The manuscript is then assigned, via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field (economics) and have no conflicts of interest with the authors. Each reviewer receives, through OJS:
- a request to confirm their willingness to review the manuscript;
- a specified deadline for submitting the review.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following ten criteria:
- relevance of the research topic;
- presence of novel scientific approaches or results;
- contribution of the study to the development of the field;
- soundness of the methodology and research methods;
- validity of the analysis/evaluation and corresponding conclusions;
- logical coherence of the structure and quality of presentation;
- quality of scientific argumentation;
- accuracy of analysis and interpretation of results;
- quality of academic writing;
- compliance with the journal’s scope and submission requirements.
Each reviewer:
- assigns a score for each criterion on a scale from 0 (does not meet the criterion) to 5 (fully meets the criterion);
- provides a written report assessing the scientific value of the manuscript, identifying issues that may be revised, and making one of the following recommendations: accept for publication; accept subject to revision;
If the evaluations and overall recommendations of the two reviewers differ substantially, the editorial team may appoint a third reviewer.
Authors have access, through the Open Journal System, to the reviewers’ scores and comments regarding the scientific merit of the manuscript and any required revisions.
The editorial team also receives, via the Open Journal System, the reviewers’ evaluations, comments, and recommendations.
Editorial Decision
Based on the independent reviewers’ reports, the editorial team communicates one of the following decisions to the authors:
- acceptance of the manuscript for publication;
- acceptance subject to revision;
- rejection of the manuscript.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and the results of any revisions made by the authors.
All materials submitted for review are treated as confidential.