Peer Review Policy

International Journal of Economics (IJEC) is an Open Access journals that maintain the highest standards of peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process.
All research articles published in International Journal of Economics (IJEC) undergo full peer review of "double-blind review" , key characteristics of which are listed below:
  • All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts.
  • All publication decisions are made by the journals’ Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the reviews provided.
  • Members of the Editorial Boards lend insight, advice and guidance to the Editors-in-Chief generally and to assist decision making on specific submissions.
  • Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants provide the administrative support that allows International Journal of Economics (IJEC) to maintain the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to authors, reviewers and editors alike.
Peer review of referred papers
Editors board of International Journal of Economics (IJEC)  will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of refereed papers based on the reviews and editorial insight. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be advised when Editors decide further review is needed.
All papers are fully peer-reviewed. We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate for the article. We used double blind peer-reviewing process. Detailed information about the flow for the manuscript submission (author) to the acceptance by editor is shown in the following figure.


In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author) (route 1)
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors) (route 2). Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using turtitin is applied for each manuscript.
  3. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers double-blind review) (route 3-4)
  4. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments) (route 5)
  5. Paper Revision (by author)
  6. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with similar flow to point number 1. (route 1)
  7. If reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). (route 6)
  8. Galley proof and publishing process  (route 7 and 8)

The steps point number 1 to 5 is considered as 1 round of peer-reviewing process (see grey area in the figure). And, our reviewing process at least goes through 2 round of reviewing process.

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

(i)   accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form

(ii)  accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections

(iii) accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance ): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors

(iv) revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes

reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions