International Journal of Economics and Finance
Editorial Process
EiC evaluates novelty, scope, and contribution (3-5 days).
Evaluated by atleast 2 independent domain experts (14-28 days).
Author responds point-by-point to reviewer feedback.
Formal Acceptance, Major/Minor Revision, or Rejection.
Copyediting, Composing, JATS XML generation & DOI registration.
Our editorial process is designed to provide a clear, fair, and consistent pathway from submission to publication. Each manuscript passes through a series of editorial and quality checks before publication.
Each manuscript goes through an initial quality check, editorial screening, and peer review. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript based on editorial or reviewer comments before a final decision is made.
After acceptance, the manuscript moves to production, including copyediting, formatting, metadata preparation, final quality checks, and publication. The process is handled with fairness, confidentiality, and consistency at every stage.
Submission & Quality Check
All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The submitting author is responsible for providing a complete manuscript and all required submission information.
At this stage, the editorial team performs an initial technical and quality check to confirm that:
- The manuscript is submitted in the required format.
- The manuscript is within the general scope of the journal.
- Author and affiliation information is complete.
- The manuscript contains the required sections and declarations.
- Tables, figures, supplementary files, and other required materials are properly provided.
- The manuscript is not obviously incomplete or unsuitable for review.
- Similarity and AI screening are conducted using Turnitin to identify plagiarism, excessive text overlap, and potential inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI-generated content.
- Any apparent plagiarism, excessive text overlap, duplicate submission, or other integrity concern is identified for further assessment.
This stage is not a full academic peer review. The purpose is to identify basic problems before the manuscript is sent to the Editor-in-Chief.
If corrections are required, the manuscript may be returned to the author before editorial screening.
Typical time: 1–3 working days
Editor Pre-Screening
After the initial quality check, the manuscript is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an authorized senior editor for preliminary academic assessment.
The editor considers whether the manuscript:
- Fits the journal’s Aims and Scope.
- Addresses a relevant research problem, demonstrates clear academic novelty, and contributes meaningful insights to the field or related area of study.
- Presents a sufficiently clear research question or objective.
- Meets the journal’s basic scholarly and ethical expectations.
- Is potentially suitable for external peer review.
At this stage, a manuscript may be declined without external review if it is clearly outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient scholarly relevance, or has fundamental problems that make peer review inappropriate.
A pre-screening decision is not necessarily a judgment on the value of the research as a whole. It determines whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed within the journal’s editorial process.
Typical time: 3–5 working days
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass editorial pre-screening are normally sent to 2–3 independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
IJOEF follows a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process.
Reviewers are normally asked to consider:
- Originality and relevance of the research.
- Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
- Quality and use of relevant literature.
- Suitability of the research design and methodology.
- Quality of data, sampling, variables, models, or analytical procedures where applicable.
- Accuracy and clarity of the results.
- Whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.
- Strength and relevance of the discussion.
- Appropriate acknowledgement of limitations.
- Quality and relevance of citations.
- Overall contribution to economics or finance.
- Ethical or research-integrity concerns.
Reviewers provide comments intended to help the editor reach an informed decision and, where revision is possible, help authors improve the manuscript.
Reviewer recommendations
Reviewers may recommend:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the complete review record.
If reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or assess the manuscript independently before reaching a decision.
Typical time: 4-6 weeks
Revision & Re-evaluation
When reviewers identify issues that can reasonably be addressed, the editor may invite the authors to revise the manuscript.
Authors should provide:
- A revised version of the manuscript.
- A clear response to each reviewer comment.
- An explanation where a suggested change has not been made.
- Appropriate evidence or references supporting any response where necessary.
Authors are encouraged to respond point-by-point rather than providing a general statement that the manuscript has been revised.
Example
Reviewer Comment:
The methodology does not clearly explain how the study sample was selected.
Author Response:
Thank you for this observation. We have added a detailed explanation of the sampling procedure in Section 3, including the inclusion criteria and final sample size.
The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor alone or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the requested changes.
Where substantial concerns remain unresolved, further revision may be requested or the manuscript may be rejected.
Typical time: 1-3 weeks
Editorial Decision
After reviewing the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and any additional information, the editor makes the editorial decision.
The possible decisions include:
Accept
The manuscript has satisfactorily addressed the editorial and peer-review requirements and is suitable for publication. It proceeds to production after any remaining technical checks.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires relatively limited changes. The editor may review the revised manuscript directly or request further reviewer confirmation.
Major Revision
Important issues require further work before a final decision can be made. The revised manuscript will normally undergo another editorial assessment and may be returned to reviewers.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication. Reasons may include insufficient contribution, methodological limitations, scope mismatch, unresolved ethical concerns, or substantial problems identified during review.
An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript must satisfactorily address the concerns raised during the review process.
Typical time: 1 week
Production & Publication
After final acceptance
Once the manuscript is formally accepted, it moves from editorial review to the journal’s internal production process.
The production team checks and prepares the accepted article for publication, including:
Copyediting
The manuscript is reviewed for:
- Language, grammar, headings and formatting.
- Tables and figures.
- References and citation presentation.
- Author information and affiliations.
- Required declarations.
Copyediting does not change the research findings or scientific conclusions without appropriate editorial consultation.
Metadata verification
The production team verifies important publication information, including:
- Article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, article type, and keywords.
- Publication dates.
- ORCID identifiers where available.
- Funding information.
- Conflict-of-interest statement.
- Data availability statement.
- Ethics statement where applicable.
DOI registration
The article’s DOI metadata is prepared and registered through the journal’s DOI registration workflow. Article metadata should be checked carefully before deposit.
Proofreading
A final proof is prepared for author review. Authors should carefully check:
- Names and affiliations.
- Tables and figures.
- Equations and symbols.
- References.
- DOI information.
- Declaration statements.
- Typographical or formatting errors.
Authors should return proof corrections within the requested timeframe.
Final quality check
Before publication, the production team performs a final check to confirm that:
- The article files are complete.
- Metadata is consistent.
- The DOI information is correct.
- The PDF/HTML/XML versions are aligned where applicable.
- Required declarations are displayed.
- References and links have been checked.
- The article is ready for online publication.
Online publication
After the final production checks are completed, the article is published online through the journal website and OJS.
The published article should include its:
Article ID → DOI → Publication date → Abstract → Keywords → Full text/PDF → References → Licensing information → Required declarations
Typical time: 1-3 weeks
Important Note for Authors
The timeframes shown above are target processing times and not guarantees. Actual processing may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, editorial workload, and the time required to resolve technical or ethical concerns.