Peer Review Policy and Procedure

  1. General Provisions

Scientific Journal “Economics and Management” adheres to a transparent, objective, and ethical peer review system that complies with international academic publishing standards and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All submitted manuscripts that meet the basic requirements undergo mandatory expert evaluation to ensure scientific quality, the reliability of results, and alignment with the journal's thematic scope. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process: authors remain anonymous to reviewers, and reviewers remain anonymous to authors.

 

  1. Core Principles of Peer Review

The editorial policy is based on:

  • Strict adherence to academic integrity by all participants in the publication process;
  • Zero tolerance for plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification;
  • Prevention of conflicts of interest;
  • Maintenance of complete confidentiality throughout the review process;
  • Impartial evaluation of manuscripts regardless of the authors' origin, providing a reasoned assessment.

 

  1. Peer Review Procedure

3.1. Initial Editorial Screening. The manuscript is evaluated for compliance with formal requirements, the journal's scope, and basic academic integrity standards.

3.2. Plagiarism Check. All submitted manuscripts undergo screening using specialised software to detect similarities (StrikePlagiarism).

3.3. Peer Review Process. The manuscript is sent to at least two independent experts in the relevant subject area. The evaluation is based on the following criteria: alignment of the content with the title; relevance; originality; methodological soundness; contribution of new insights to the field; factual accuracy; overall quality; and adherence to academic and ethical principles. Reviews are provided in written form and contain a reasoned conclusion regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. The standard review period is 2–3 weeks. Based on the reviews, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:

  • The article is suitable for publication;
  • The article requires minor revisions and will be suitable for publication after they are addressed;
  • The article requires major revisions and must undergo re-review after the changes are made;
  • The article is not suitable for publication. Authors are notified of the review results via email. All decisions are documented and stored in the editorial archive. Final versions of the articles must incorporate the reviewers' suggestions and comments. If certain comments are not addressed, authors must provide a detailed justification. If significant concerns are raised, the revised version is sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

 

  1. Evaluation Results

The reviewer provides a reasoned conclusion using a standardised form, selecting one of the following options:

  1. Accepted as is: Recommended for publication in its current form.
  2. Minor Revision: Publication is possible after minor corrections without the need for additional review.
  3. Major Revision: Significant changes to methodology or argumentation are required, followed by a second round of review.
  4. Rejection: The article does not meet the journal's scientific standards (specific reasons will be provided).

 

  1. Revision and Final Decision

In case of disagreement with the reviewer's findings, the author has the right to provide a reasoned rebuttal. In disputed cases, the manuscript may be sent to an additional (third) expert or discussed at a meeting of the Editorial Board. The final decision on whether to include an article in an issue is made collectively by the Editorial Board, based on the reviewers' conclusions and the quality of the author's revisions. Authors are informed of the final decision via email. All decisions and review records are documented and kept in the editorial archive for 3 years.