International Journal of Economics and Finance

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.