Economic: Journal Economic and Business (EJEB) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly relevance of published research through a structured and independent peer-review process.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated according to their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, scientific contribution, methodological quality, clarity of presentation, and compliance with publication ethics.

The peer-review process is conducted under the supervision of the editorial team, following the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and editorial independence.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team before being considered for external peer review.

The initial screening evaluates:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

• Compliance with manuscript types and author guidelines.

• Originality and scholarly contribution.

• Completeness of manuscript structure and submission requirements.

• Appropriateness of research methods and academic presentation.

• Compliance with authorship and publication ethics requirements.

• Potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap.

EJEB uses Turnitin to support manuscript originality screening. Similarity reports are evaluated in context and are not treated as the sole basis for determining plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned for revision or rejected during initial screening.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the research topic.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, research experience, subject-area expertise, independence, and ability to provide constructive scholarly evaluations.

The editorial team considers potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest must disclose them and decline or withdraw from the review assignment when appropriate.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Economic: Journal Economic and Business (EJEB) applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer-review process.

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process:

1. Authors must prepare an anonymized manuscript that does not contain author names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgments, or other information that directly reveals their identities.

2. Author identification and affiliation information must be provided separately through the OJS submission metadata or other designated submission fields.

3. Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts forwarded to reviewers do not contain identifying information that could compromise reviewer anonymity.

4. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of manuscripts assigned to them.

5. Reviewer identities and confidential review reports must not be disclosed to authors.

6. Authors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality and disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the independence of the evaluation.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when author identities may be inferred from previously published research, publicly available preprints, or other contextual information.

All editorial decisions remain based on the scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, and ethical compliance of the submitted manuscript.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide scholarly assessments based on the quality and contribution of the research.

The evaluation considers:

1. Originality and Contribution: The novelty, significance, and contribution of the research to economics, accounting, management, or business.

2. Research Objectives: The clarity and relevance of the research questions or objectives.

3. Literature and Theoretical Foundation: The appropriateness of supporting literature, theoretical arguments, and identification of research gaps.

4. Methodology: The suitability and clarity of research design, data collection, and analytical procedures.

5. Results and Discussion: The accuracy, coherence, and depth of the findings and their interpretation.

6. Conclusions: The consistency of conclusions with the research objectives, methods, and findings.

7. References: The relevance, accuracy, and appropriate citation of scholarly sources.

8. Academic Presentation: The clarity, organization, and overall quality of scholarly writing.

9. Research Ethics: Compliance with originality, authorship, data integrity, and other applicable ethical standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive recommendations supported by academic reasoning.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Following manuscript evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions before further editorial consideration.

• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and further evaluation.

• Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly or editorial requirements.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine acceptance or rejection.

6. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, compliance with journal policies, and the adequacy of any author revisions.

The editorial team may request additional reviews when evaluations are substantially inconsistent or further expertise is required.

The final decision is made by the authorized editor based on the available assessments and the journal's editorial standards.

Editorial decisions are independent of financial, institutional, personal, or commercial interests.

7. Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving revision requests must carefully consider reviewer comments and editorial recommendations.

Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a clear response explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional editorial evaluation or further peer review when necessary.

A revision request does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose unpublished manuscript content or use confidential research information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, avoid personal criticism, and disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Any suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, research misconduct, or other ethical concern identified during peer review should be reported to the editorial team.

9. Editorial Independence

EJEB maintains editorial independence throughout manuscript assessment and decision-making.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members must be handled by another qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

Editorial positions, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or financial considerations must not provide preferential treatment during manuscript evaluation.

10. Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript may be accepted when the editorial team determines that it meets the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, and presentation requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial production process, including copyediting, formatting, metadata preparation, and publication scheduling.

EJEB publishes four issues annually and may publish accepted articles progressively during the relevant quarterly publication period once editorial and production requirements have been completed.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal or complaint concerning an editorial decision through the journal's official contact channels.

Appeals should identify the manuscript, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting information.

Where practicable, appeals will be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision.

12. Ethical Standards

The peer-review process is informed by the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

https://publicationethics.org/

This policy should be read together with EJEB's Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship Criteria, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Allegation of Research Misconduct Policy.