Evaluation System

Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Economics, Education and Society uses a double-blind peer review system to ensure the objective, impartial, and high-quality evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it:

• falls within the journal’s aims and scope;

• meets the journal’s formal and technical requirements;

• demonstrates appropriate academic and scientific quality;

• complies with publication ethics and academic integrity requirements; and

• raises no unresolved concerns regarding textual similarity or plagiarism.

The editor may decline to send a manuscript for external peer review if it does not meet the journal’s basic requirements or falls outside its scope.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic and professional expertise.

The identity of the authors is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors. The editorial team takes reasonable measures to remove identifying information from manuscripts where practicable.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• academic qualifications and research experience;

• expertise relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript;

• ability to provide an independent and objective assessment; and

• absence of any actual or potential conflict of interest.

Whenever practicable, reviewers are selected from institutions independent of the authors’ institutional affiliations.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. Reviewers with a relevant conflict of interest should decline the review.

5. Review Period

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe established by the journal. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the requested period, they should promptly notify the editorial office.

[Specify the journal’s actual review period, e.g., 2–3 weeks.]

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant academic and methodological criteria, including:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

• originality and contribution to knowledge;

• clarity of the research problem and objectives;

• adequacy of the theoretical and empirical foundations;

• appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

• quality and reliability of data analysis and results;

• consistency between findings, interpretation, and conclusions;

• organization and structure of the manuscript;

• quality and relevance of the literature; and

• overall scientific significance.

Reviewers should provide constructive and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

7. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, the possible decisions are:

Accept;

Minor Revisions;

Major Revisions / Revise and Resubmit;

Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it. The final publication decision rests with the editor.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request an additional independent review or make a decision based on the available evaluations and the journal’s standards.

8. Revision of Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments and clearly indicate how each substantive recommendation has been addressed.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Confidentiality

All information obtained during the peer review process is confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with third parties without authorization from the editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, or findings obtained through peer review for their own research or other purposes.

10. Completion of the Peer Review Process

Following completion of peer review and the final editorial decision, accepted manuscripts proceed to technical processing and professional language editing.

The journal seeks to conduct the peer review process in a timely manner while maintaining the quality and rigor of scholarly evaluation.

Peer Review Procedure

The International Journal of Economics, Education and Society maintains high academic standards through the use of a double-blind peer review process. Under this system, the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author. This procedure is intended to ensure an objective, impartial, and academically rigorous evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The process from manuscript submission to publication consists of the following main stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial editorial assessment.

At this stage, the following aspects are assessed:

• Scope and relevance: whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope;

• Formal and technical compliance: whether the manuscript meets the journal’s formatting and technical requirements;

• Academic quality: whether the manuscript meets the journal’s basic academic and scientific standards; and

• Academic integrity: whether the manuscript raises concerns regarding textual similarity or plagiarism, using appropriate similarity-detection software, including Turnitin.

If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s basic requirements, falls outside the journal’s scope, or raises serious concerns regarding academic misconduct, the editor may decline to send it for external peer review (Desk Rejection).

A similarity percentage alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism. Any decision is based on an individual assessment of the nature, sources, and context of the identified similarities.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are sent to two independent reviewers with appropriate academic and professional expertise.

Reviewers should generally:

• possess relevant academic qualifications and research experience;

• have expertise relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript;

• be independent of the authors; and

• have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Whenever practicable, reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and should not be current or former co-authors of the manuscript.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The manuscript is evaluated using a double-blind peer review process. The identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the author.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to remove identifying information from manuscripts where practicable.

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and to provide an independent, objective, and constructive assessment.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the journal’s principal review criteria, which may include:

Relevance to the journal’s scope;

Scientific novelty and originality;

Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

Theoretical foundation and use of relevant literature;

Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

Reliability of data analysis and results;

Interpretation of findings and logic of conclusions;

Manuscript structure and quality of academic writing; and

Overall scientific significance and contribution.

Where applicable, the journal may use a five-point rating scale (1 – Unsatisfactory; 2 – Weak; 3 – Satisfactory; 4 – Good; 5 – Excellent).

Numerical ratings are used as a supporting tool in the editorial process and do not replace the reviewers’ qualitative and evidence-based assessments.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and academically justified comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ assessments, their written comments, and the editor’s independent evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:

Accept;

Minor Revisions;

Major Revisions / Revise and Resubmit;

Reject.

Reviewer scores are not used as the sole automatic basis for an editorial decision. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.

If a manuscript receives a particularly low assessment on a fundamental criterion, such as scientific novelty, methodological rigor, or academic integrity, the editorial team may reject the manuscript regardless of its scores on other criteria.

6. Substantial Divergence Between Reviewer Assessments

If the assessments of the two reviewers differ substantially—for example, where one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection—the Editor-in-Chief may:

• request an additional independent review;

• make a decision based on the existing reviews and the editor’s own assessment; or

• appoint a third reviewer where necessary.

The third reviewer’s assessment serves as an additional expert opinion, while the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

7. Revision of Manuscripts

Where the decision is Minor Revisions or Major Revisions / Revise and Resubmit, the authors receive the anonymous reviewer comments and are given an opportunity to revise the manuscript.

Authors should provide a response to the reviewers’ comments and clearly indicate how substantive recommendations have been addressed.

In cases of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

8. Notification of Authors and Publication

Authors are notified of the final editorial decision and, where applicable, receive the anonymous reviewer comments.

Following a positive decision, the accepted manuscript proceeds to technical processing, professional language editing, and typesetting before publication.

In the case of rejection, the author is notified of the decision and, where appropriate, is provided with an explanation of the principal reasons for the decision.

9. Estimated Duration of the Process

The journal seeks to conduct the peer review process in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining appropriate standards of academic quality.

An initial editorial decision will normally be communicated to the author no later than [specify the actual period, e.g., 4–6 weeks] from the date of manuscript submission.

This period may be extended when additional time is required to identify suitable reviewers or obtain the necessary peer review reports.