1.Double-blind peer review

The rigour of a peer review system protects the quality of a research article. Review helps authors improve their manuscripts and helps editors make sound decisions. Review of Economics and Finance uses a double-blind peer review system, and all submitted manuscripts go through it before publication.

In a double-blind system, the two sides do not know each other’s identity. Any detail that could identify the authors is removed from the manuscript before it is sent to a reviewer. In the same way, the reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors when their comments are sent back.

We consider double-blind review the more effective approach because it limits possible bias, whether it comes from reviewers or from authors.

2.Stage 1: Editorial office review

On submission, the editorial office checks that the manuscript meets the journal’s minimum requirements before it goes to external reviewers. Four things are checked:

• Similarity

  The manuscript is compared with published work using iThenticate and Plagiarism Checker X. High similarity with other works, including the authors’ own earlier work, leads to rejection at this stage, and the authors receive the similarity report with the decision. Similarity Check powered by iThenticate is an initiative of Crossref that helps its members prevent plagiarism.

• Scope

  If the similarity level is acceptable, we check that the content fits the journal’s scope. If it does not, we ask the author’s consent to transfer the manuscript to a more suitable journal. A transfer is not an acceptance: the manuscript still goes through peer review and may be accepted or rejected there.

• References

  Authors are encouraged to cite recent articles. Ideally, a considerable share of the references should come from work published within the last five years.

• English language

  The journal currently publishes the full text of articles in English only.

We also check the structure, organisation, correctness and clarity of the writing against the journal’s Author’s Guideline. The editorial office usually corrects minor grammatical errors without changing the meaning of the manuscript. If the language is substantially hard to understand, the manuscript is returned to the author to improve its clarity.

Manuscripts that do not pass this stage are returned to the authors for modification and resubmission. Because it lets authors improve the manuscript early, this stage is very useful, and it is usually completed within a week.

3.Stage 2: External review

Once a manuscript passes the editorial office, it moves to the second stage, which uses the double-blind system.

Choosing reviewers

At least two external reviewers with expert knowledge of the subject area are selected from our database, our editorial board or other sources. Reviewers are first invited by receiving the manuscript’s abstract. If they accept, they are sent the full text with the authors’ details concealed.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and give useful comments that help the authors improve its quality. They also score it on:

• Originality
• Contribution to the field
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Depth of research

Reviewer recommendations

Each reviewer then makes one of these recommendations:

• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Not suitable for further processingThe reviewer gives specific reasons.

A positive report from one reviewer does not guarantee acceptance. If another reviewer raises concerns that could fundamentally undermine the study and its results, the manuscript may be rejected.

When reviewers disagree

The editorial office reads all the comments. If the two reviewers give significantly different or contradictory opinions on the same manuscript, it is sent to a third reviewer. All comments, including the third reviewer’s where needed, are then sent to the authors, with the reviewers’ identities concealed.

How long it takes

The time taken depends on reviewer availability, but this stage is usually completed within one to four weeks.

4.Stage 3: Editor’s decision

Using the reviewers’ comments, the authors correct the manuscript and submit a revised version. It then enters the third and final stage. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal, who makes one of these decisions:

• Accept as it is
• Accept with minor correction
• Requires major corrections
• Send revised manuscript for review again
• Reject

What happens next

• Accepted as it is. The manuscript is scheduled for publication.
• Corrections needed. Manuscripts needing minor or major corrections go back to the authors to make the changes the editor suggests. The editor then reviews them again before they are accepted for publication.
• Further checks. In some cases the editor asks the authors to make corrections a second time. In others, the editor asks a reviewer who saw the earlier version to check the revision, with or without further corrections, before acceptance.

5.Preparing your manuscript

To help protect anonymity during double-blind review, authors are encouraged to:

• Keep names, affiliations and contact details out of the manuscript text, and give them separately when you submit.
• Leave out acknowledgements and funding details until the manuscript is accepted.
• Refer to your own earlier work in the third person, and avoid wording that reveals who you are.
• Check that file names, document properties and links do not identify you.

The editorial office also removes identifying details before a manuscript is sent to reviewers.

6.What we expect from reviewers

Reviewers play a central role in the quality of the journal. We ask every reviewer to:

• Treat the manuscript and the review as confidential, and not share or use the work before it is published.
• Decline the invitation if they have a conflict of interest or cannot be objective.
• Judge the work on its merit alone, without regard to the authors’ nationality, gender, institution or seniority.
• Give specific, constructive and courteous comments that help the authors improve the work.
• Respond within the agreed time, or tell the editorial office early if they cannot.
• Tell the editorial office about any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication or ethical concern. See our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

7.Review for the journal

We welcome researchers with subject expertise who would like to review for Review of Economics and Finance. You can meet the current reviewers on our Reviewer Board, and learn how to apply on the Join Board page.