Peer-Review Process

A rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer-review process is employed in order to advance the quality of scholarly research papers submitted for publication in the Studies in Business and Economics Journal (SBE). Authors are constantly encouraged to submit their manuscripts at any time. All the submitted manuscripts go through a multilevel review process. This process follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and meets evaluation criteria set by Scopus, ABDC Journal Quality List, and Academic Journal Guide (AJG).

  1. Overview of the Peer-Review System:

The Journal operates a double blind review process, where:

  • Reviewers are anonymous to authors.
  • The identity of the author(s) is not known to the reviewers.
  • The journal editor(s) ensure objectivity by anonymising all submitted manuscripts before starting the review process.

This process safeguards fairness, removes bias, and maintains the clear credibility and scholarly standard of all published articles.

  1. Stages of the Peer-Review Process:

Studies in Business and Economics Journal (SBE) follows a multi‑stage review workflow that ensures transparency and consistency. The stages of the peer-review process are clearly outlined below. Each stage of the Journal’s review workflow, provide transparency to authors, reviewers, and readers.

2.1. Submission and Initial Screening (Editorial Office Check):

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts:

2.1.1. Administrative Screening (Journal Admin):

Within this screening, the journal admin assesses:

  • The completeness of the submission files.
  • Compliance of the manuscript with the journal formatting and referencing guidelines.
  • Verification that the manuscript includes all required declarations (e.g., conflict of interest, ethical approval for human/animal subjects where applicable, funding statements, etc.).

2.1.2. Plagiarism and Research Integrity Checks (Journal Admin):

  • Mandatory plagiarism screening is conducted using industry-recognised similarity detection software (iThenticate).
  • The plagiarism (similarity) report is then sent to the journal Editor-in-Chief.
  • The journal acceptable similarity percentage is fully illustrated on the journal “Publication Ethics” section.
  • All academic integrity issues are carefully assessed including duplicate publication, salami slicing, and image manipulation.

2.1.3. Fit and Scope Evaluation:

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Senior Editor evaluates:

  • The plagiarism (similarity) report. Submissions exceeding the Journal’s similarity threshold or showing signs of misconduct are returned to authors or escalated to an integrity investigation following COPE flowcharts.
  • The alignment of the manuscript with the Journal’s aims and scope.
  • The manuscript Contribution to theory, practice, or methodological advancement.
  • Overall suitability and potential impact of the manuscript.

Manuscripts failing this stage receive a desk rejection within 7-14 days.

2.2. Assignment to the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor:

If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to the journal Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise. The Editor-in-Chief or the Handling Editor will:

  • Reassess the manuscript’s methodological adequacy and contribution.
  • Invite appropriate reviewers to assess the submitted manuscript based on expertise, independence, and past reviewing performance.
  • Selected reviewers will then be contacted via email to confirm their availability and willingness to review the assigned manuscript. The email sent to the selected reviewers will contain the anonymised manuscript abstract and the review submission deadline.
  • If the potential reviewer(s) agreed to review the submitted manuscript, the manuscript with all reviewing guidelines is sent to the reviewer(s) to complete the review process.

All conflicts of interest are strictly avoided, following COPE guidelines.

2.3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation:

The Journal employ a double-blind reviewing system, in which the Editor-in-Chief or the Handling Editor recruits 2 independent expert reviewers (or more if necessary) using the following criteria:

Reviewer Qualification Standards:

  • Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Strong publication record in reputable journals.
  • No conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or funders.
  • Commitment to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Diversity and Quality Assurance:

To promote inclusivity and reduce regional bias:

  • Reviewers are selected from diverse geographic regions.
  • At least one reviewer must be independent of the authors’ countries or institutions.

2.4. Peer-Review Process:

2.4.1. Review Duration:

Normally, reviewers are offered 4-6 weeks to complete the first round of the review process for a manuscript. This review duration period might differ in the case of the journal special issues where the reviewers might be given more time to complete the required reviews. 

2.4.2. Review Criteria:

Reviewers evaluate their assigned manuscripts by following these rigorous criteria:

  1. Originality and Contribution:

For a manuscript to be accepted, it need to show novelty and originality. Within this regard, reviewers assess carefully the theoretical advancement, and practical implications that the manuscript offers to the journal readers.

  1. Methodological Rigour:

For any manuscript to be accepted it need to show high methodological rigour. Reviewers assess the credibility of the research design, methods, data and data analysis.

  1. Literature Integration:

For any manuscript to be accepted it need to show good coverage of the related literature within the manuscript. The depth of the literature review, its accuracy, and the comprehensiveness of the theoretical foundation of the research represent very important elements of the reviewers’ assessment of the manuscript.

  1. Quality of Arguments:

For a manuscript to be accepted, the consistency, clarity, and coherence of the offered arguments within the manuscript need to offer good contribution to knowledge.

  1. Ethical Compliance:

For a manuscript to be accepted, it needs to obtain all the required ethical approval(s). In addition, any conflict of interest needs to be declared. Transparency and data integrity must be safeguarded to guarantee the manuscript quality and ethical compliance.

  1. Presentation Quality:

The manuscript organisation, clarity of presentation, readability, and formatting are evaluated to guarantee the manuscript quality.

  1. Confidentiality:

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the research submissions and not use it for personal research purposes or disclose the research to anyone outside the review process.

2.4.3. Reviewer Recommendations:

Possible reviewer decisions are:

  • Accept.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions.
  • Accept with Major Revisions.
  • Reject.

All decisions must be justified with constructive, actionable feedback for authors and the journal Editor-in-Chief.

2.5. Editorial Decision

 

The Editor-in-Chief or the Handling Editor synthesises reviewer feedback, evaluates the manuscripts’ scientific merit, and makes a decision. Depending on complexity, the Editor-in-Chief may also evaluate the manuscript.

Editorial Decision categories include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

The Editor’s decision is final, and the Journal does not engage in disputes about reviewer identities or internal workflows.

2.6. Revision Process:

2.6.1. Author Responsibilities:

  • Address all reviewer comments point-by-point.
  • Provide a detailed Response to Reviewer Report.
  • Submit a clean revised manuscript and a marked-up version showing changes.

2.6.2. Additional Review Rounds:

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review rounds if:

  • Major revisions were requested.
  • Reviewers require verification.
  • Editors deem it necessary for quality assurance.

The Journal aims to minimise review cycles to 1-2 rounds whenever possible. However, more review rounds might be needed is some cases. Second review round normally take between 2-4 weeks to be completed. 

2.7. Final Acceptance and Production:

Upon acceptance:

  • Manuscript undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and reference checking.
  • Authors review proofs for accuracy (if needed).
  • The article is published online ahead of print (where applicable).
  1. Ethical and Integrity Standards:

The Journal applies firm ethical policies and procedures, among which:

3.1. Adherence to COPE Standards:

The Journal strictly follows and adhere to COPE standards, including COPE core practices, guidelines for editors and reviewers, and procedures of misconduct handling. Any concerns or worries linked to ethical breaches are investigated thoroughly and transparently.

3.2. Conflicts of Interest:

All parties involved in the review process (including the manuscripts authors, editors and manuscript blind reviewers must reveal and declare any potential, possible, or definite  conflicts of interest. Such conflicts of interest include:

  • Official affiliations.
  • Economic and monetarist relations.
  • Professional relationships.
  • Personal relationships.
  • Editorial or advisory roles conflict of interest.

Manuscript reviewers contact the journal Editor-in-Chief in presence of any conflicts of interest with the submitted research manuscripts. Failure to disclose of conflicts of interest may result in rejection or retraction.

3.3. Data Integrity and Reproducibility:

Authors must ensure:

  • Accuracy and integrity of data.
  • Availability of data upon request when ethically and legally permissible.
  • Transparency regarding data collection, analysis, and limitations.

The Journal encourages (but does not require) data sharing, preregistration, and open materials standards.

3.4. Human and Animal Research Ethics:

Where relevant, and/or required, authors must provide:

  • IRB/ethics committee approval.
  • Informed consent statements.
  • Compliance with GDPR or data protection regulations.

3.5. Authorship and Contribution Transparency:

The Journal uses the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to ensure clarity in authorship roles. Ghostwriting, guest authorship, and undisclosed contributors are prohibited.

3.6. Post-Publication Issues

The Journal commits to:

  • Publishing corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions according to COPE guidelines.
  • Allowing responsible post-publication commentary and scholarly debate.
  • Ensuring long-term accessibility and archiving of published articles.
  1. Review Quality, Reviewer Training & Editorial Oversight:

To position the Journal as a leading publication portal:

  • Reviewers may be recognised annually for exemplary service.
  • Mandatory orientation materials and ethical instructions are provided to reviewers (when possible).
  • Editorial Board members undergo annual training on ethical publishing, COPE developments, and evaluation standards for Scopus/ABDC/AJG (when possible).
  • Review of quality is monitored and documented for continuous improvement.
  1. Commitment to Transparency and Excellence:

The Journal Peer-Review Process is designed to safeguard scientific rigour and integrity, and offer the following:

  • Maximum support to authors through offering constructive and developmental feedback and comments.
  • Offering the journal readers high quality, and impactful research publications.
  • Meet the main international indexing and ranking standards.
  • Establish the Journal as a trusted and leading publication portal in Business, and Economics.