Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Empirical Economics and Multidisciplinary Methods (JEEMM) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the highest academic standards and ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of the research it publishes. Our peer review policy is designed to foster a fair, unbiased, and constructive evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

1. Type of Peer Review:

JEEMM employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other. This ensures impartiality and minimizes any potential bias in the review process. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in the relevant field of study.

2. Submission and Initial Screening:

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejection prior to peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection:

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent experts in the field who are qualified to review the submission. Reviewers are chosen based on their research background, expertise, and experience in the relevant subject matter of the manuscript.

4. Review Process:

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, methodology, clarity of presentation, theoretical foundation, empirical analysis, and relevance to the field of empirical economics and multidisciplinary methods.

  • Reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback and constructive criticism to help authors improve their work. They also recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

  • The review process typically takes 2 to 4 weeks. However, the timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability.

5. Decision Making:

After receiving feedback from the reviewers, the editorial board makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. The options include:

  • Accepted: If the manuscript is deemed to meet the journal’s standards, it will be accepted for publication.

  • Revisions Required: If the manuscript requires minor or major revisions, authors are invited to revise the manuscript based on the reviewer feedback. The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the reviewers.

  • Rejected: If the manuscript does not meet the required standards or lacks significant contributions to the field, it may be rejected.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics:

  • All reviewers are required to treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. They must not disclose any details or use the information for personal gain.

  • Reviewers are expected to provide objective, unbiased, and constructive feedback.

  • Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editorial team prior to accepting the review assignment. Reviewers with any potential conflicts of interest will be excluded from the review process.

7. Revisions and Resubmissions:

  • Authors are required to submit a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments when submitting a revised manuscript. This response should detail how each suggestion or concern raised by the reviewers has been addressed.

  • Revised manuscripts may go through additional rounds of review if necessary.

8. Publication Ethics:

  • JEEMM adheres to the highest standards of publication ethics. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices will lead to immediate rejection of the manuscript.

  • The journal follows the ethical guidelines set by organizations such as COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

9. Open Peer Review (Optional):

JEEMM encourages openness and transparency in the review process. In certain cases, authors may opt for open peer review, where the reviewers’ names and comments are publicly available along with the published article. This option is available for authors who are interested in enhancing the visibility and credibility of the peer review process.

10. Final Decision and Notification:

Once a final decision is made, authors are notified of the outcome. If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production phase for formatting and publication. If rejected, authors may appeal the decision by providing additional clarification or evidence, which will be reviewed by the editorial board.