The process and peer‑review procedure for manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal of Economic and Financial Research are as follows:
1. Submitted manuscripts are first checked for alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope are returned to the authors.
2. Manuscripts within scope undergo preliminary checks for formatting compliance and a similarity (plagiarism) scan. If deficiencies or errors are detected at this stage, the manuscript is returned to the authors for correction.
3. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary checks are assigned to an editor, who then appoints a subject/handling editor according to the topic of the research.
4. The subject editor evaluates the scholarly quality of the manuscript and decides either to decline it without external review (desk rejection) or to send it out for peer review.
5. The peer‑review process is double‑blind: reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
6. Using the double‑blind system, the subject editor sends the manuscript to two expert reviewers for evaluation.
7. Reviewers may recommend: acceptance as submitted, acceptance after revision, or rejection.
8. For a manuscript to be accepted for publication, at least two reviewers must recommend acceptance.
9. If one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.
10. If two of the three reviewers recommend rejection, the subject editor issues a decision letter of rejection and forwards the reviewer reports to the authors.
11. If revisions are requested, the reviewer reports (and any attached files) are sent to the authors.
12. Authors must submit a revised version within 15 days, addressing all reviewer criticisms and suggestions. They must also provide a point‑by‑point response detailing the revisions made, to be forwarded to the reviewers.
13. Reviewers reassess the revised manuscript, taking into account both the revisions and the authors’ responses to the reviewer comments.
14. Following reassessment, reviewers may recommend acceptance, request further revisions, or recommend rejection.
15. Once the peer‑review process is complete, the editorial board makes the final decision based on the reviewer reports.
16. Even if two reviewers recommend acceptance, the editorial board reserves the right to make the final determination on publication or to send the manuscript to an additional reviewer for further assessment.