Peer review in the Economic Forum journal is a fundamental mechanism for ensuring academic quality and adherence to professional standards. Its primary purpose is to guarantee that all published materials meet the principles of academic integrity, demonstrate a sufficient level of scholarly rigour, and comply with ethical guidelines. Reviewers are expected to remain impartial, avoid any conflict of interest, and follow the rules outlined in the journal’s Publication Ethics.

 

 

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This approach minimises subjective influence and supports fair, thorough, and unbiased evaluation.

 

 

Once a manuscript is submitted, it undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office. At this stage:

 

Only manuscripts that meet all formal criteria proceed to the expert review stage.

 

 

A preliminary content evaluation is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. They determine whether the manuscript has potential for publication, whether it fits the journal’s thematic profile, and whether it meets the expected academic standards.

 

If the Editor-in-Chief is unable to assess the manuscript due to a conflict of interest (such as personal or professional connections with the authors), the evaluation is delegated to another member of the Editorial Board.

 

Once the manuscript is approved at this stage, a technical editor anonymises it and assigns a unique identification code.

 

 

The anonymised manuscript is then sent to:

 

Reviewers are highly qualified specialists, typically holding a doctoral degree and working within the same subject area as the submitted manuscript. They must not have institutional or personal links to the authors, ensuring objectivity and independence.

 

 

During the review process, experts assess the manuscript with regard to:

 

Reviewers also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest improvements, and provide an overall judgement.

 

 

Following evaluation, reviewers may reach one of the following conclusions:

 

If revisions or rejection are advised, reviewers provide detailed comments explaining their reasoning.

 

 

The author receives the Editorial Board’s decision along with all recommendations for improving the manuscript. If revisions are required, the revised version is resubmitted and may undergo additional or repeated review. Reviewers may request further clarifications or modifications if needed.

 

Even after substantial revisions, the manuscript may still be rejected if the improvements are insufficient or if reviewers’ comments have not been adequately addressed.

 

 

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ assessments and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s requirements. In cases involving a conflict of interest, the final decision is taken by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.