Peer Review

Desk Rejection

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system, following the formatting and referencing guidelines. The editorial team conducts a preliminary review to assess the submission’s alignment with the journal’s scope, originality, and compliance with ethical standards (e.g., plagiarism check).
During the pre-review evaluation, the Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editor assess the manuscript to determine whether it proceeds to peer review or is rejected outright. At this stage, they may decline a manuscript without sending it for peer review, providing specific reasons for the decision. Common reasons for rejection include non-compliance with the journal's focus, scope, and policies, or insufficient scientific or linguistic quality.
If the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope but requires technical or linguistic corrections, it will be returned to the authors for revisions. In such cases, authors do not need to resubmit the manuscript; they simply need to upload the corrected file(s) to their existing submission.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to the peer review stage.

Peer Review Process

The Economy and Sociology Journal adheres to a double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartiality, objectivity, and high academic standards in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. In this process, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
Key factors considered during the review include relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language quality.
As part of the submission process, authors must declare any potential Conflicts of Interest. This declaration becomes part of the article metadata and is displayed in both the PDF and HTML versions of the published article.

1. Selection of Reviewers

  • The editor assigns at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of research.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers do not receive any identifying information about the authors, and authors are not informed about the identities of the reviewers.

2. Review Process

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on scientific rigor, methodology, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field of economics and sociology.
  • They provide constructive feedback and recommendations (accept, minor/major revisions, or reject).
  • The review process typically takes 4–8 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript.

3. Editorial Decision

The possible editorial decisions are as follows:

  • Accepted for publication
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject with re-submission encouraged
  • Reject

4. Final Decision and Publication

  • Authors invited to revise and re-submit their work should note that acceptance is not guaranteed. Final acceptance is subject to compliance with applicable legal requirements, such as those related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. No research may be published in more than one outlet. If revisions are required, authors must provide a detailed response addressing the reviewers' comments.
  • After revisions are submitted, the editor may send the manuscript for a second round of review (if necessary).
  • Once the manuscript meets all quality standards, it is accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief and scheduled for an upcoming issue.
  • The final version undergoes copyediting and formatting before online and print publication.

5. Handling Divergent Peer Reviews in the Double-Blind Review Process

  • When a manuscript receives conflicting reviews—one recommending acceptance (or minor revisions) and the other suggesting major revisions or rejection—the editorial team follows a structured approach to ensure a fair and well-reasoned decision.
  • In cases where significant discrepancies exist between the two initial reviews, the editor may assign an additional expert reviewer. The third reviewer provides an independent assessment, helping to validate or challenge the concerns raised by the initial reviewers and offering additional insights for the editorial decision.
  • If one review is highly critical while the other is positive, the editor may request major revisions, allowing the authors to address key concerns before a final decision is made. The editorial team may communicate that the manuscript is not rejected outright but requires substantial improvements. The revised manuscript can then be reassessed by the original reviewers or a new reviewer.
  • For particularly conflicting reviews, the editor may seek guidance from members of the Editorial Board to reach a consensus.
  • The editor provides a well-reasoned decision to the authors, summarizing the key points from the reviews and explaining the rationale behind the final verdict. If revisions are required, the response outlines the critical areas that need improvement. If the manuscript is rejected, the justification highlights the major weaknesses identified in the peer review process.

6. Ethical Considerations

  • The Economy and Sociology Journal follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/resources) guidelines to maintain academic integrity.
  • Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must ensure their work is original and properly cited.
  • This rigorous double-blind peer review process guarantees that the Economy and Sociology Journal maintains high scholarly quality and credibility in the academic community.
  • To maintain transparency and avoid conflicts of interest, Editors-in-Chief and managing editor are strongly advised to limit the number of papers they co-author. As a guideline, such papers should not exceed 10% of the journal’s annual publications. This policy safeguards against endogeneity and ensures fairness in the editorial process.
  • Furthermore, Editors-in-Chief, managing editors, and handling editors are prohibited from overseeing manuscripts they have co-authored, ensuring an impartial review process.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The publishing ethics and malpractice policies follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA), the NISO Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J), and, where relevant, the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals from ICMJE.