Information for Reviewers

Peer review is a key element of the editorial and publication process, ensuring the academic quality, reliability and originality of the published material. All manuscripts that meet the requirements of the journal ‘Economic Thought’ undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
The Editorial Board selects reviewers on the basis of their academic competence, professional experience and expertise in the relevant academic field.
Reviewers undertake to:
•    conduct an objective, impartial and timely assessment of manuscripts in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the guidelines for authors;
•    maintain complete confidentiality regarding manuscripts submitted for review, and not to distribute, reproduce or use them for personal or professional purposes;
•    notify the editor of any conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of the assessment;
•    inform the editorial team if they are unable to complete the review within the specified deadline;
•    inform the editorial team if they do not wish to review a revised version of the manuscript;
•    provide additional explanations or clarifications regarding the review, where necessary.

Reviewers must not upload, input or process the manuscripts provided to them, in whole or in part, into applications, platforms or services based on artificial intelligence (AI). When carrying out their assessment, reviewers are expected to focus on the scientific quality, originality, methodology, and practical and theoretical significance of the research, as well as on the clarity and logic of the presentation.

Review procedure

• Upon receiving an invitation to review, the reviewer confirms their willingness to carry out the assessment within the specified deadline.

• The editorial team provides an anonymised manuscript and a standard review form.

• The completed review is sent to the email address .......... within the specified deadline.

• If necessary, the editorial team sends the reviews to the author with recommendations for amendments and sets a deadline for submitting a revised version of the manuscript.

• Upon receipt of the revised version, the editorial team submits it to the original reviewer to check the extent to which the recommendations have been addressed.

• The reviewer carries out a follow-up assessment and submits a final opinion, recommending one of the following options:

- acceptance of the manuscript for publication;

- acceptance following minor editorial corrections;

- the need for further substantial revision and re-review;

- rejection for publication.

Based on the reviewer’s final opinion, the editorial board decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript and notifies.