Peer Review Process and Editorial Decision-Making

The manuscript evaluation process is conducted by domain experts in the field of economics. Section editors perform the initial assessment of the submissions. To ensure the highest scientific standards, manuscripts undergo a strictly confidential, double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed. However, the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript does not rest solely with the reviewers. Instead, the final publication decision is made by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ evaluations, with the Editor-in-Chief holding the ultimate decision-making authority.

The general workflow for manuscript submission and review is structured as follows:

• Manuscript Submission: Articles must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system.
• Initial Screening by the Editor-in-Chief: The manuscript is evaluated to determine its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. If appropriate, it is forwarded to the relevant Section Editor; otherwise, it is desk-rejected.
• Evaluation by the Specialized Working Group: Once assigned to the Section Editor, the manuscript is discussed in the group’s monthly meetings to ensure it meets the journal’s vision and criteria. The evaluation focuses on the following aspects:
• Demonstration of a clear critical approach, which must be well-articulated in both the abstract and the main text.
• Sufficient scientific and content quality to warrant formal peer review.
• Utilization of current, credible, and international references.
• Originality and academic innovation.
• Strict adherence to the journal’s formatting and author guidelines.

(Manuscripts failing to meet these fundamental criteria will be rejected at this stage).

• Assignment to Peer Reviewers: Upon initial approval by the working group, the Section Editor assigns the manuscript to reviewers. The reviewers receive the manuscript alongside the official review form and the “Guidelines for Preparing Critical Articles” (specifically tailored for book reviews, theoretical critiques, and educational planning).
• Submission of Review Reports: The Section Editor forwards the results of the peer review to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Initial Decision & Author Notification: If the reviewer reports are negative, the manuscript is rejected, and the author is notified. If positive, the reviewer comments are shared with the author for necessary revisions.
• Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript: The author’s revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the Section Editor and forwarded to a comparative reviewer (to verify that the requested revisions have been properly addressed).
• Presentation to the Editorial Board: The manuscript and its review history are presented at the Editorial Board meeting.
• Editorial Board Decision: The Board may request further modifications from the author or decide to reject the manuscript. The author is notified accordingly.
• Submission of the Final Revision: The author submits the finalized, corrected manuscript.
• Review by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief: The manuscript undergoes a compliance check by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
• Final Verification by the Section Editor: The Section Editor conducts a final review of the manuscript.
• Publication Fee Notification: The invoice for the Article Processing Charge (APC) is issued to the author.
• Final Acceptance and Queuing: Upon final acceptance, the manuscript is moved to the “Articles in Press” queue. Because each issue of the journal is dedicated to a specific specialized subgroup, the article will remain in press until the scheduled publication of that group’s respective issue.