Review Policies
Review Policies
Editorial Review and Peer Review Policies
The editorial team of Journal of Contemporary Economics and Management (JCEM) is committed to strictly adhering to internationally recognized standards and procedures in the editorial and peer review processes. This ensures that:
The content of the manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of Journal of Contemporary Economics and Management.
The research contributes original, innovative, and high-quality insights to the field of economics and management.
The manuscript complies with the journal’s format, referencing style, grammar, and language requirements.
Manuscripts not conforming to journal guidelines will be returned to the authors without scientific evaluation.
The review process follows a double-blind peer review system. The review policy of JCEM involves both editorial review and external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening will be sent to at least three international experts in the relevant field of economics and management for double-blind peer review. Authors’ identities will not be revealed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities will remain confidential from authors. Reviewers may be acknowledged only after publication of the manuscript.
Each submission will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor for relevance, formatting, and originality, including a plagiarism check. This preliminary review will be completed within 7–10 days. Manuscripts meeting the basic requirements will be assigned to an Assistant Editor for technical editing and formatting, after which they will be forwarded for external peer review.
The peer-reviewers will be selected based on their expertise, ensuring representation across the interdisciplinary nature of sustainable development, and when applicable, at least one reviewer from the country or region that is the focus of the manuscript will be invited.
The reviewers will evaluate manuscripts primarily for their relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to knowledge and practice. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ suggestions. Where disagreements arise, authors should provide detailed clarifications or rebuttals to the editors.
The Editor-in-Chief, after considering reviewers’ reports, revised manuscripts, and any additional expert advice when required, makes the final decision to accept, revise, or reject a submission. Once accepted, authors must format their manuscripts according to the journal’s template before typesetting and proofreading. Authors will have the opportunity to review the final PDF before online publication.
Evaluation Criteria
The peer reviewers of JCEM will evaluate each manuscript based on at least the following 10 principles and standards:
The title is brief, clear, specific and appropriate to the content/purpose of the article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 10 to 15 words long and summarizes the main idea or ideas of the study.)
The abstract accurately describes the content of the paper. (Example: It discusses a compact view of the research problem, purpose of study, research design, key findings and is 180-200 words long.)
The Keywords are enough and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title and supplement the title's contents. These are descriptive, represent key concepts and nouns, and are 6-8 words.)
The Introduction gives an overview from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), and an outline of the remaining structure/organization of the article.)
The Literature Review gives an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the larger field of the study. (Example: It gives a description, summary, and critical evaluation of sources explored in relation with the research problem(s) being investigated.)
The research Methodology is adequately described. (Example: It describes the actions taken for investigation of the research problem and the rationale for the application of the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze the information applied to understanding the problem.)
Results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the study findings based upon the methodology(ies) being applied and in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation if data is generated from the author’s own research.)
The discussion is clear and the findings are accurately analyzed. (Example: It interprets and describes the significance of findings in light of what was already known about the research problem. It explains new understanding or insights being emerge based on studying the problem. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature reviewed.)
The conclusion is supported by the findings of the results. (Example: It helps the readers to understand why the research should matter to them. It gives a synthesis of key points and, (if applicable), recommends new areas for future research.)
