Reviewers Guidelines

Peer-review represents an important step in a journal’s publication process. Acting as a filter for all manuscripts received, it manages to ensure the journal’s scholarly quality. Therefore we are very grateful for all Reviewers help in evaluating the manuscripts and providing expert opinions.

The best possible review should be developed taking into consideration the following:

  • the article submitted for review matches the reviewer’s expertise;
  • sufficient time allocation for the review process in order to meet the deadline stated in the invitation to review;
  • existing conflicts of interests of any kind and scale may influence the reviewing process, so the Reviewer should announce the Editor if such situation arises;
  • not only the suggestions and comments should be confidential, but the manuscript itself should be kept as a privileged communication;
  • the Reviewer is not allowed to send the comments made upon an article directly to the author(s) of that article.

The Reviewer’s comments should address the following:

1) The topic of the manuscript is relevant for Management and Economics Review’s theme and topics. Embracing a multidisciplinary approach Management and Economics Review publishes papers on a wide range of topics related to management science and practice:

Strategic managementInvestment management
Project managementEconomic Modelling and Analyses
Knowledge managementConsumer Economics
Corporate social responsibilityWelfare Economics
Quality managementEconomic Forecasting and Simulation
Human resources managementEconomic Impacts of Globalization
Risk managementEconomic Development
Operations managementEnvironmental Economics
Financial managementNatural Resource Economics
International BusinessEconomic Growth

Each article must tell a cohesive story appropriate to the specific of the journal.

2) The paper has a potential to contribute to the knowledge of Economy and Management field. The contribution in terms of novelty and originality should be addressed and highlighted. In the same time, the significance of the paper’s main claims should be emphasized; in this way the Reviewer can decide if the paper is outstanding for the field and for the journal’s readers.

3) Seminal works in the related literature are mentioned by this manuscript. Reviewers should carefully follow the authors’ trial to include in their works relevant previous research. It is important that each work explain the context of the research and provide evidence of other related works with different findings.

4) The manuscript is of scholarly quality. In determining the suitability for publication, this criterion is one of the most important as it reveals the scientific soundness of each work.

5) Written expression of the manuscript is fluent and appropriate. The writing style of each article must be easy to follow and understandable not only for specialists but also for non-specialists; in the same time it should be concise, without grammatical or spelling errors.

Regarding the Reviewer’s final decision, the following categories should be considered for making the recommendation:

  1. Accept As Submitted (with routine editing)
  2. Accept With Suggested Revisions
  3. Possibly Accept After Extensive Revisions
  4. Reject

In case if revision is needed, each Reviewer should announce the Editor whether or not is willing to review the revised article.