The review process

The peer review process is a critical mechanism for maintaining the scientific integrity, quality, and relevance of academic publishing. At Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition (SSECO), all manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Once a manuscript is submitted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), the editorial office performs an initial screening to ensure:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope and thematic areas
  • Compliance with formatting and ethical guidelines
  • Absence of plagiarism or major ethical issues

Submissions that do not meet these basic requirements may be desk-rejected before entering the review process.

2. Editorial Triage

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor evaluates the submission for its potential scholarly contribution. At this stage, the manuscript may be:

  • Sent for peer review
  • Returned for resubmission with technical corrections
  • Rejected due to insufficient novelty or poor alignment with journal priorities

3. Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two independent experts with subject-area expertise and no conflict of interest. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications
  • Previous reviewing experience
  • Match with manuscript topic and methodology

4. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and innovation
  • Relevance and significance of the research question
  • Robustness of the methodology
  • Clarity, structure, and academic style
  • Strength of results and their implications
  • Ethical integrity of research and data usage

Reviewers are invited to recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

They are also expected to provide constructive, anonymous feedback for the authors.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the editor makes a formal decision:

  • Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication (with or without minor edits)
  • Revise and Resubmit: Authors are asked to improve the manuscript in line with comments
  • Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form

If revisions are requested, authors are encouraged to submit a detailed response letter outlining how each reviewer comment was addressed.

6. Revision Cycle

Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of peer review—typically by the original reviewers. This process may repeat until a final editorial decision is reached.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the copyediting, proofreading, and typesetting stage. All articles are published open access under the CC BY 4.0 license and assigned a DOI.

8. Commitment to Quality and Ethics

SSECO follows the COPE Code of Conduct for Editors and Reviewers. We take allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research very seriously. Reviewers and editors are expected to declare any conflicts of interest and adhere to confidentiality at all times.

Why Peer Review Matters

  • Quality control: Ensures methodological rigor and academic integrity
  • Improvement: Authors benefit from expert feedback
  • Credibility: Reviewed work holds greater weight in the academic community
  • Transparency: The process is impartial and traceable through structured editorial records

For more information or to join our reviewer database, please contact the editorial office at bogdan.nichifor@ub.ro