Peer Review Guidelines

Peer review is a very important stage of the process of publishing academic papers; it is the core of the whole system. It has two major functions: it acts as a filter to ensure that only quality research is published and it improves the quality of the research submitted for publication.

Performing peer review

Peer review is done confidentially, the manuscript you were asked to review must not be presented to a third party. You need to make sure you have 2-3 hours to perform the review. It is better to perform the entire evaluation once and not occasionally, when you have time or with interruptions.

You should consider the following criteria while reviewing your manuscript:

1. Originality.

Is the manuscript new and interesting enough to justify its publication?

Is the research an important one?

Does the manuscript meet standards set by the journal?

2. Structure.

Is the manuscript presented clearly?

Are all the elements present: abstract, keywords, JEL classification, introduction, methodology, results, conclusion, and bibliography?

Consider each element separately:

• Title. Does it clearly describe the manuscript?

• Abstract. Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?

• Introduction. Does it accurately/precisely describe what the author wanted to achieve/obtain and does it clearly present the problem studied? The introduction is normally 1-2 paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research in order to offer/provide the context and explain what results/findings belonging to others, if any, are disputed/claimed or developed. The experiment, the hypothesis, the general experimental outline/design or the method should de described.  

• Methodology. Is it appropriately chosen? Does it exactly explain how the data were collected? Is the project appropriate to answer the question asked? Is there enough information for you to find answers for your research? Does the manuscript identify the procedures used? Are they ordered in a logical way? In case the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Has the sample been appropriate? Have the materials and equipment been adequately described?

Has the manuscript made it clear what type of data was recorded? Has the author been accurate in describing the measurements? When considering the entire manuscript, do the figures and tables inform/communicate something to the reader? Are they an important part of the manuscript? Do the figures accurately describe the data in the manuscript? Are they made clear and are they consistent, for example, do the bars of the graphic representations have the same thickness, are the scales of the axes logical?

• Results. Here the author has to explain the findings of his/her research. The results should be presented clearly and in a logical sequence. You should assess whether an appropriate analysis was performed. Are the statistics correct?

• Conclusions. Are the statements in this section supported by results? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors shown the relationship between the results and the previous expectations and research? Does the manuscript support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain in what way the research represents a step forward for the scientific knowledge?

• References. Does the manuscript support and indicate an appropriate previous research? If the manuscript is based on previous research, does this refer to the previous research appropriately? Is there an important work that has not been included? Are the references correct?

3. Language.

If a manuscript contains a certain number of misspelled words and if it has grammatical errors do not correct the language. Inform the editor of the poor quality and give him/her the opportunity to make the right decision. The language correction is not the reviewer’s responsibility.

4. Ethical issues.

• Plagiarism: if you suspect a manuscript to be a substantial copy of a previous work(s), inform the editor and cite the work(s) in question.

• Fraud: it is very difficult to detect deceit, but if you suspect that the results in a manuscript are not true, bring it to the attention of the editor, explaining why you think the results are fraudulent.

• Other ethical issues: whether confidentiality is kept, in case data are used which by their nature are not publicly available; whether the necessary permissions are presented and all significant contributions and sources evoked; whether the animals or human beings ethical treatment rules are violated or not.

5. Report communication.

Once you have completed your assessment of the manuscript, the next step is to complete the report and submit it to the editor.

The report should contain the key elements of your peer review, taking into account the points outlined in the previous section. When you write the comment you should do this in a constructive and polite way. You must not include any personal remarks about the author.

Understanding of any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your opinion, so that both the publisher and the authors can understand your comments. It is also necessary to indicate whether your comments are a personal opinion or they are reflected and substantiated by data.

When you make the final recommendation, regarding the reviewed manuscript, you will need to consider the categories that an editor will use to classify the manuscript, namely:

1.  Acceptance without review

2. Acceptance, but with review (either minor or major)

3. Rejection because of poor quality or outside the scope of the journal

If you think your manuscript needs to be peer reviewed, clearly indicate the editor what type of review is needed and inform him/her whether or not you want to see the revised manuscript.