Peer review process
Peer review plays a significant role in the publication of scholarly journals through assessment of validity, quality and originality of submitted manuscripts. There are three types of peer review: “open”, “single blind” and “double blind”.
Journal Innovative Economics and Management supports the double blind peer review.
- A corresponding author submits a manuscript and a Cover letter signed by all authors (the manuscript and the Cover letter are sent via the firstname.lastname@example.org. Also at this stage, authors can suggest appropriate reviewers for this manuscript and include their names and email addresses in the comments section. At the initial stage a Managing Editor checks the structure, spelling and compliance of manuscript with all submission guidelines, plagiarism, etc. If the manuscript doesn’t comply with the abovementioned, then it should be rejected.
- At the next stage, the manuscript is passed to an Editor, who determines its potential interest for readers, importance and relevance for scientists. Also an Editor assesses correspondence of the manuscript to journal's scope, as well as its compliance with the requirements of the journal.
- Manuscripts that don’t match these criteria, as well as scientifically poor manuscripts, should be rejected without further peer reviewing. The editors have the right to reject manuscripts at the pre-review stage; manuscripts rejected by the editors at the pre-review stage are not subject to further consideration, and the author cannot re-submit the article for consideration.
- If the manuscript complies with the requirements of the journal, then the Editor assigns a Handling Editor, responsible for peer review, who sends the manuscript for double blind peer review to two (usually) or more (if necessary) reviewers. The choice of peer-reviewers is based on their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience (e.g. Ph.D. rank and relevant publications).
- The invited reviewers should accept indispensable terms and conditions in order to exclude conflict of interests, confirm their competence, concerning the scope of the manuscript, and specify definite terms of reviewing. Then they decide to accept or decline the invitation. In case of declining they can recommend alternative reviewers. In case of accepting they should prepare a Referee Report. All manuscripts are double blind peer-reviewed, which means that reviewers do not possess any information about the authors’ identities and vice versa. Also at this stage the author should be informed that the manuscript had been sent for double blind peer review.
- After reviewing, the Handling Editor examines Referee Reports and in some cases can invite an additional reviewer in order to get an extra opinion.
- The authors are provided with reviewers’ comments (anonymously). After that the revised manuscript passes the second review by Handling Editor (also manuscripts can be re-sent to reviewers after author(s)’ revision).
- At the last stage Handling Editor provides the Editor with the information about the reviewing process and sends recommendations, concerning manuscript's publication. The final decision is taken by the Editor.
- The authors are informed about the results of reviewing. They can be provided with Referee Reports without identification of the reviewers, if needed. Authors can also appeal against editorial decision, providing their own arguments and explanations.
- In case of manuscript acceptance, the publication process starts. If rejected, the manuscript is sent to the author(s).