Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Review of Economics, Accounting, Business, and Management Studies (REABMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, and editorial excellence through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a comprehensive editorial evaluation followed by expert peer review to assess its originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, scholarly contribution, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

The peer review process serves as a fundamental quality assurance mechanism that supports objective editorial decision-making, promotes constructive scholarly dialogue, and enhances the quality of published research. Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript and are independent of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, career stage, funding source, or any commercial or personal interests.

REABMS is committed to ensuring that all participants in the peer review process—including authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff—conduct themselves with professionalism, confidentiality, fairness, and respect for the principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Type of Peer Review

REABMS employs a double-blind peer review system to promote impartiality, minimize bias, and ensure objective evaluation. Under this model:

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
Manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, significance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to knowledge.
Editorial decisions are made independently of personal, institutional, geographic, political, religious, or commercial considerations.

*The journal maintains reviewer anonymity throughout the editorial process unless an alternative review model is explicitly announced for a specific article type or special issue.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Academic Editor. This preliminary assessment determines whether the manuscript:

Falls within the journal's aims and scope
Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly significance
Complies with the journal's submission and formatting requirements
Adheres to ethical standards for research and publication
Includes all required declarations and supporting documentation
Meets acceptable standards of academic writing and English language quality

As part of the editorial assessment, manuscripts may also undergo originality screening using recognized similarity detection software.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary requirements may be:

  • Returned to the authors for technical revision;
  • Declined without external peer review (desk rejection); or
  • Proceed to external review if they satisfy the journal's editorial criteria.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers possessing recognized expertise in the relevant discipline.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Subject expertise
Research experience
Publication record
Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest
Ability to provide objective and timely evaluations

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Originality and novelty
Relevance to the journal's scope
Significance and contribution
Theoretical & practical implications
Methodological rigor & design
Quality of data analysis
Validity & reliability of findings
Clarity & scholarly presentation
Adequacy & accuracy of references
Compliance with ethical standards

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, evidence-based recommendations that assist both the authors in improving their manuscripts and the editors in reaching informed editorial decisions.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Conduct reviews objectively, professionally, and impartially
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscript content
  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit
  • Identify relevant published literature that should be considered
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or misconduct
  • Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest
  • Complete reviews within the agreed period or promptly notify the Editorial Office

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal research, professional advantage, or any unauthorized purpose.

Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may recommend qualified reviewers during manuscript submission to facilitate the reviewer selection process. However:

  • Reviewer recommendations are entirely optional.
  • The Editorial Office independently evaluates all suggested reviewers.
  • Suggested reviewers are not guaranteed to receive review invitations.
  • The journal reserves the exclusive right to appoint reviewers based on expertise, availability, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors may also identify individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript, provided a reasonable justification is supplied. The Editorial Office will consider such requests whenever appropriate while maintaining editorial independence.

Editorial Decision

After consideration of the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Academic Editor will make one of the following decisions:

Accept Accept with Minor Revisions Major Revisions Required Revise and Resubmit Reject

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, editorial evaluation, the manuscript's scientific quality, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to the field. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over all editorial decisions.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed point-by-point response addressing every reviewer comment
  • An explanation of any recommendations not adopted, supported by appropriate scholarly justification.

Substantially revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when further evaluation is considered necessary. Failure to submit revisions within the specified period without prior communication may result in withdrawal.

Appeals of Decisions

Authors who believe an editorial decision resulted from a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or other legitimate concern may submit a formal appeal. Appeals must:

  • Be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office
  • Clearly explain the basis for the appeal
  • Provide supporting evidence where appropriate

Appeals are evaluated independently by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever feasible. The outcome of the appeal shall be considered final.

Confidentiality

All materials submitted to REABMS are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, editorial discussions, or unpublished findings. Confidential information must not be used for personal, professional, financial, or academic advantage.

Ethical Standards

REABMS expects all participants to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics. Editors and reviewers must act fairly, declare conflicts of interest, avoid bias, respect confidentiality, and report suspected misconduct. Allegations of unethical conduct are investigated per the Publication Ethics Policy.

Timeliness of Review

REABMS strives to provide a timely and efficient review process. The Editorial Office works diligently to complete initial assessments promptly, secure qualified reviewers, and communicate decisions quickly. Maintaining review quality, however, remains the journal's highest priority.

Commitment to Integrity

Through rigorous editorial oversight, qualified independent reviewers, and objective evaluation, REABMS ensures that every published article represents a meaningful, ethical, and transparent contribution to the multidisciplinary fields of economics, business, and management.

Alignment with International Standards

This policy has been developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing and ethical editorial practice. It is informed by the guidance and recommendations of:

REABMS periodically reviews and updates its peer review procedures to ensure continued alignment with evolving international standards for editorial quality, research integrity, transparency, and ethical scholarly publishing.