To the Reviewers


The editing and review policy of the journal is based on the double–blind review principle, i.e. the review is carried out anonymously because the article’s author and the reviewer are not familiar with each other’s identities. This guarantees the impartiality of the manuscript’s evaluation and encourages the pursuit of originality in research and a high quality of manuscripts. By doing this, the Editorial board would like to set and maintain international standards for publishing quality academic research.     

To facilitate the review process, the Editorial Board have developed a review template. It consists of two main types of criteria:

Formal criteria: 

  • adequacy of the title;

  • relevance of the study;

  • relevance of the study with reference to the journal’s profile;

  • comprehensive, well–written abstract;

  • key words;

  • JEL.


    • Evaluation criteria grouped into four categories:

  • Originality of the research;

  • Layout of the manuscript;

  • Theory, methodology, research;

  • Results and conclusions.


    • The conclusion of the reviewers is presented as follows:

  • Accepted. The reviewer justifies their recommendations regarding their analysis of the results.

  • Accepted after certain (minor) corrections. This is applied when the manuscript meets the evaluation criteria but needs certain amendments. The reviewer presents their review comments and recommendations to the author in written form.

  • Accepted after revision and consideration of reviewers’ comments and recommendations. If the manuscript satisfies the requirements in general, but certain aspects do not comply with some of the criteria categories, it is returned to the author for rewriting. In this case, the reviewer points out the weaknesses of the manuscript and makes appropriate comments. After revision, the manuscript is once again submitted to the Editorial Board for a second review. The manuscript is then accepted for publication.   

  • Rejected. If the manuscript does not meet the quality standards and the necessary technical requirements set by the journal.


    • In addition, the review specifies:

  • The type of article (research, conceptual, etc.)

  • The section where the manuscript will be published;

  • Identified cases of plagiarism, conflicts of interest or other unethical practices. 


    • All reviews should be submitted within the deadlines set according to the editing policy of the journal. In case of delays or the inability to present their reviews, editors must inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible.