International Journal of Economics and Finance

Email: ijoef@pdpublishers.com

ISSN No: 3050-0702

Editorial Policies

Article Processing Charges

All Manuscripts submitted up to December 2026 will be processed and published free of Article Processing Charges (APCs).

Quick Navigation

Editorial Policies

International Journal of Economics and Finance (IJOEF) is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research in economics and finance. It brings together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners seeking rigorous, well-evidenced work on global economic and financial issues. The journal is committed to immediate Gold Open Access, publishing all articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), ensuring transparency, academic integrity, and a fair editorial process for every author.

IJOEF follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all its editorial decisions and publishing conduct. The policies set out on this page cover authorship, peer review, ethics, data, and research integrity, giving authors, reviewers, and editors one consistent standard to work to. Where a matter is not directly addressed below, the Editorial Board refers to COPE's guidance to reach a fair outcome.

Authorship and Contributions Policy

To qualify as an author, an individual must meet all four of the following criteria:

Made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
Drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
Approved the final version of the manuscript to be published; and
Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria such as those who provided technical support, general supervision, writing assistance, or data collection must not be listed as authors. Instead, their contributions should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.

Contributor Roles (CRediT)
To ensure complete transparency regarding individual contributions, a CRediT Statement for every submitted manuscript is required.

The CRediT taxonomy provides a standardized record of each contributor’s specific input. It complements but does not replace the ICMJE criteria for qualifying as an author. At submission, authors must assign one or more of the following standardised roles to each listed author:

Conceptualisation · Methodology · Software · Validation · Formal analysis · Investigation · Resources · Data curation · Writing – original draft · Writing – review & editing · Visualisation · Supervision · Project administration · Funding acquisition

CRediT Guidelines:

A single author may hold multiple roles.
A role may be shared among multiple authors.
Not every role needs to be assigned for a given manuscript.
The order in which roles are listed carries no weight or ranking of importance.
The final CRediT statement will be published as part of the article’s front matter.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author serves as the primary liaison between the journal and all co-authors during submission, peer review, and publication. The corresponding author is responsible for:

Confirming that all listed authors meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship.
Ensuring all authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript prior to submission.
Verifying that all authors agree on the author sequence and the submitted CRediT statements.
Managing all editorial correspondence and coordinating response files during revision cycles.

Corresponding author and changes to authorship
Changes to the author list including adding, removing, or reordering author names after manuscript submission are strongly discouraged. Any request for a change must be fully justified and submitted before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Requests are not automatically granted and undergo a strict evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief to verify the validity of the change and ensure compliance with ICMJE authorship criteria.

The corresponding author must submit a formal request to the Editorial Office accompanied by a written consent declaration signed by all listed authors, including any author being added or removed.

No authorship changes will be permitted after formal acceptance or during the production and publication stage, except under exceptional circumstances handled in strict accordance with COPE guidelines.

Peer-review Policy

Double-blind peer review process for manuscripts that are subject to external peer review is followed. The process is designed to provide fair, independent, confidential, and constructive assessment of scholarly work.

Our peer-review process follows COPE guidelines to rigorously assess the scientific merit, methodology, ethical compliance, and relevance of every submission. Reviewers are required to adhere strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and maintain complete confidentiality throughout the evaluation.

Double-blind peer review process means:

Author identities and institutional affiliations are removed from the manuscript before it is sent for review.
Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors at any point during or after the evaluation.
This ensures that assessment remains entirely objective, focusing purely on scientific quality and theoretical contribution rather than institutional origin or author identity.

Reviewer Selection & Independence

Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent subject-field experts selected by the handling editor based on relevant publication history and expertise in the manuscript’s specific topic.
Reviewers must have no competing interests with the authors including recent co-authorship, current or recent shared institutional affiliation, or personal/financial relationships that could affect their judgment.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers’ evaluation is based on:

Originality and contribution to the subject field.
Methodological and econometric soundness.
Validity of empirical results and conclusions.
Clarity, logical structure, and language precision.
Adequacy and currency of literature citations.

Reviewers submit a detailed written report alongside a formal recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

From Review to Editorial Decision

Once both reviewer reports are received, the Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Handling Editor) evaluates the feedback alongside the manuscript. The EiC weighs the academic substance of the reports rather than conducting a simple majority vote.
Where two reviewer reports disagree significantly, the EiC may invite a third independent reviewer to conduct an evaluation before issuing a final decision.
A manuscript typically undergoes no more than two rounds of review. If fundamental concerns remain unresolved after a second revision, the EiC will issue a final decision to prevent endless review cycles.

Reviewer Code of Conduct (COPE Alignment)

Peer review relies on reviewers acting with honesty, fairness, and discretion, in strict compliance with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Before Accepting an Invitation

Accept only if you possess genuine domain expertise in the subject area and can deliver a thorough review.
Decline promptly if you have a conflict of interest or cannot complete the evaluation within the requested timeframe.

During the Review Process

Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share, discuss, or upload it to any third-party software, including Generative AI platforms or external databases.
Provide specific, constructive, and evidence-based feedback. Refrain from personal remarks or dismissive comments regarding language competence.
Do not use any data, proofs, or ideas from an unpublished manuscript in your own research.

Raising Ethical Concerns

Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest directly to the handling editor.
If you recognize the author’s identity despite manuscript blinding, inform the editor immediately so a decision can be made regarding recusal.

Post-Review Obligations

Respond promptly to follow-up editorial queries or requests to review author revision responses.
Maintain complete confidentiality regarding the manuscript even after publication or rejection decisions are finalized.

Plagiarism Policy

All submitted manuscripts are expected to present original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge the ideas, words, data, methods, figures, tables, and other intellectual contributions of others.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other forms of unattributed use of another person’s work in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Definitions of Misconduct

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the following practices:

Reproducing text, dataset structures, figures, or tables from another source without direct quotation marks and full attribution.
Altering a few words or restructuring sentences from another author’s work while retaining the core logic, flow, or phrasing without proper citation.
Presenting another researcher’s conceptual framework, empirical model, or analytical findings as original work.

Similarity Screening

Every manuscript that passes the initial technical check is automatically screened using Turnitin prior to being assigned for peer review.
Pre-Review Requirement: No manuscript enters the peer-review pipeline without an official similarity report on file.

Similarity Thresholds & Criteria

Overall Similarity Index: Less than 20%
Single-Source Similarity: Less than 5%
Allowed Exclusions: Properly formatted direct quotes, bibliography/references, and standard mathematical/methodological formulas

Manuscripts slightly exceeding the threshold due to poor paraphrasing or unexcluded quotes are returned to the authors for mandatory revision prior to review.
Submissions displaying extensive, deliberate, or uncredited text reuse are rejected outright at desk screening, regardless of the overall percentage.

Self-Plagiarism & Text Recycling

Reusing substantial portions of an author’s own previously published work including journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, or working papers without explicit disclosure is treated as self-plagiarism.

Citing pre-prints, working papers, or doctoral dissertations is permitted, provided the author explicitly discloses the prior release in the cover letter and manuscript text.
Limited, properly cited reuse of an author’s own specialized methodology or dataset description is acceptable.
Recycling empirical findings, econometric analysis, or discussion sections across multiple publications is strictly prohibited.

Investigation & Handling Procedures

Suspected instances of plagiarism are handled in strict accordance with COPE Flowcharts:

If plagiarism is detected during screening or peer review, the manuscript is held, and the corresponding author is asked to provide an explanation. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the manuscript is formally rejected.
If published content is found to violate plagiarism standards, a formal Retraction Notice or Corrigendum in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines is issued.
In cases of severe or repeat misconduct, the journal reserves the right to notify the author’s academic department head, institutional ethics board, or funding agency.

Editorial Decision Policy

Every editorial decision is based strictly on scholarly merit: originality, methodological rigor, and relevance.

Decisions are guided by peer review reports, handling editor assessments, and scope alignment. Commercial considerations, author identity, and Article Processing Charge (APC) payment or waiver status play no role in editorial decisions.

One of four decisions is conveyed: Accept (approved for publication); Minor Revision (minor edits required); Major Revision (substantive changes required); or Reject (declined for publication; does not meet quality or scope standards).

Authority & Conflict Recusal

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) or assigned Handling Editor holds ultimate decision authority.
Editors recuse themselves from submissions involving current collaborators, institutional colleagues, or personal conflicts. Reassigned editors make all decisions independently.

Decisions are not simple majority votes. Editors weigh the logical strength and evidence in reviewer reports.
If reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may invite a third reviewer or exercise independent judgment.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision resulted from a factual error or reviewer misunderstanding may submit a formal appeal under the Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Research Ethics and Integrity Policy

Authors are responsible for conducting and reporting their research honestly, accurately, and in accordance with applicable ethical, legal, institutional, and regulatory requirements.

Authors must ensure that research is conducted responsibly and that the methods, data, results, and conclusions are presented accurately. Research should comply with the ethical standards and regulations applicable to the relevant discipline, country, institution, and research design.

Where applicable, research involving:

Human participants; Patients or identifiable individuals; Animals; Human biological materials; Sensitive, personal, or confidential data; Clinical, experimental, or intervention-based research; and Vulnerable populations

must receive appropriate ethical review or committee approval before the research is conducted.

Authors should provide the name of the relevant ethics committee, institutional review board, or equivalent body and the approval or reference number where applicable.

Informed Consent and Privacy

Where required, appropriate informed consent must be obtained from research participants. Authors should clearly state how consent was obtained and, where applicable, whether consent for publication was obtained.

Authors must protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants and must not include unnecessary personally identifiable information. Identifying information, photographs, case details, or other materials should only be published where appropriate consent and ethical requirements have been satisfied.

Animal Research

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international standards for animal welfare. Authors should provide relevant ethical approval information where applicable and demonstrate that appropriate measures were taken to minimise animal suffering and unnecessary use of animals.

Research Data and Reporting Integrity

Authors must maintain accurate research records and report methods, data, results, limitations, and conclusions honestly. Data, images, figures, tables, statistical analyses, and other research materials must not be fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or presented in a misleading manner.

Where appropriate and legally and ethically possible, authors should make supporting data, analytical materials, code, or other research resources available in accordance with the journal’s Data Availability Policy.

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Fabrication of data, results, or research records;
Falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, or results;
Plagiarism and misappropriation of another person’s work or ideas;
Inappropriate or deceptive reporting;
Manipulation of citations or the scholarly record;
Unethical or unauthorised research involving participants, animals, or personal data;
Inappropriate authorship practices;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the research;
Duplicate or redundant publication; and
Other serious breaches of research integrity or applicable ethical requirements.

Honest errors or differences in interpretation are not necessarily research misconduct but may require correction where they affect the accuracy of the published record.

Investigation of Ethical Concerns

Concerns regarding research ethics or integrity may be raised before or after publication. Editorial office may request clarification, supporting documentation, ethics approval records, consent information, research data, or other relevant evidence where necessary.

Concerns may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, relevant editorial personnel, or other appropriate independent experts. Where necessary, the matter may be referred to the author’s institution, ethics committee, funder, or another competent authority for investigation.

Authors are expected to cooperate fully and provide accurate information during such investigations.

Availability of Data and Materials Policy

Authors should provide a clear Statement for the Availability of Data and Materials where applicable.

Research data, analytical code, research instruments, or supporting materials should be made available where ethically, legally, and practically possible.

Where data cannot be shared because of:

Privacy or confidentiality; Ethical restrictions; Legal requirements; Proprietary ownership; Third-party licensing; Other legitimate restrictions.

Authors should clearly state the reason and, where possible, explain how qualified researchers may obtain access.

Authors must not make false claims about data availability.

Editors may request supporting data, code, documentation, or other materials where necessary to assess the integrity or reproducibility of the work.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose relationships or activities that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their judgment.

Conflicts may include:

Financial interests; Employment or consultancy; Funding relationships; Personal relationships; Academic or professional competition; Institutional interests; Intellectual or commercial interests.

A conflict does not automatically prevent publication or participation. Transparency allows the potential effect of the relationship to be assessed appropriately.

Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves where a conflict could compromise independent judgment.

Funding Policy

Authors should disclose relevant funding sources or support with grant numbers, and other relationships or interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the research or its interpretation.

Funding sources should be identified where applicable, together with any relevant role of the funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or decision to publish.

Preprint Policy

Authors may submit manuscripts that have previously appeared as preprints, provided that the preprint does not constitute duplicate publication and the journal’s submission requirements are satisfied.

Authors should disclose a relevant preprint at submission and provide its citation or persistent identifier where available.

The existence of a preprint does not normally prevent consideration for publication.

Once an article is published, authors should ensure that the relationship between the preprint and the final published version is clear, where appropriate.

Substantial prior publication of the same work in a journal, book, or other formal publication must be disclosed and may be considered under the journal’s policies on duplicate or redundant publication.

Appeals and Complaints Policy

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the decision. An appeal should be made within 30 days of the editorial decision.

An appeal should:

Clearly identify the manuscript.
Explain the specific grounds for appeal.
Address the relevant editorial or reviewer concerns.
Provide supporting information where appropriate.

An appeal is not intended simply to request reconsideration because an author disagrees with a decision.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate editorial authority. Where necessary, an independent editor may be involved.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, publication ethics, peer review, or journal procedures will be investigated fairly and confidentially.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions Policy

The journal maintains the integrity of the published scholarly record and will correct the literature when necessary.

Correction

A correction may be issued when a published error is identified that does not invalidate the overall reliability of the article.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued where significant questions exist about an article but an investigation has not yet reached a final conclusion.

Retraction

An article may be retracted where substantial errors, unreliable findings, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, ethical violations, or other serious concerns materially affect the integrity of the published work.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will be clearly linked to the affected article and maintained as part of the publication record.

The original article will not ordinarily be removed from the scholarly record except where removal is required for legal or exceptional reasons.

Advertising & Commercial Policy

Editorial decisions are independent of advertising, sponsorship, commercial relationships, or other revenue-generating activities.

Advertisers and commercial sponsors must not influence:

Editorial decisions; Peer-review outcomes; Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts; Published scholarly content.

Advertising, where permitted, should be clearly distinguishable from editorial content.

Commercial relationships must not create an appearance that publication can be purchased or influenced through financial arrangements.

Sponsored or commercially supported content must be clearly identified where applicable.