Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Applied Finance and Economic Policy (JAFEP) upholds the highest standards of academic integrity and quality in the review and publication process. Our peer review process is designed to ensure that all published articles are of the highest scientific, academic, and ethical standards. This policy outlines the principles and procedures for peer review that the journal follows.

1. Peer Review Process

  • Double-Blind Peer Review: JAFEP follows a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This ensures impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation of the manuscript.

  • Manuscript Submission: Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Once a manuscript is submitted, it is screened for plagiarism and other ethical issues. If the manuscript passes initial checks, it is sent to at least two independent, qualified reviewers for evaluation.

  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. We strive to ensure that reviewers have appropriate academic qualifications and experience in the relevant field of finance and economic policy. If needed, the editorial team may reach out to additional reviewers to ensure a thorough review process.

  • Reviewer Invitations: Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, methodology, clarity, relevance, and academic contribution. Reviewers are also asked to evaluate the ethical integrity of the research, including issues related to data manipulation, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest.

2. Criteria for Peer Review

The following criteria guide the peer review of submitted manuscripts:

  • Originality: The manuscript should present original research that contributes new knowledge to the field of finance and economic policy.
  • Relevance: The topic should be of significant relevance to the journal’s scope and focus areas, including economic policy, applied finance, and other related topics.
  • Methodology: The research methodology should be robust, transparent, and appropriate for the research questions posed in the manuscript.
  • Clarity and Structure: The manuscript should be clearly written, well-organized, and free from unnecessary jargon. Authors should provide sufficient details about their research methods, findings, and conclusions.
  • Ethical Considerations: The manuscript should adhere to ethical standards, including proper citation of sources, transparency of data, and informed consent in case of human or animal subjects.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. They should not share the manuscript or discuss it with others without the consent of the editorial team.

  • Impartiality: Reviewers should conduct their assessments impartially, basing their recommendations on the quality and integrity of the manuscript, not on personal preferences or biases.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations in a timely manner, typically within 2–4 weeks of receiving the manuscript. If a reviewer is unable to meet this timeline, they should notify the editorial team promptly.

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to authors, offering clear and actionable suggestions for improvement. They should highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, helping authors improve their work.

4. Editorial Decision

After receiving feedback from the peer reviewers, the editorial team will make a final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is or with minor revisions.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes or clarifications before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript needs substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Authors are notified of the editorial decision along with the reviewer comments. In cases of major revisions, authors are required to resubmit the revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.

5. Ethical Considerations

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the peer review process. If a conflict arises, the reviewer may recuse themselves from the review process.

  • Plagiarism and Research Misconduct: The journal has a strict policy against plagiarism and other forms of research misconduct. Manuscripts suspected of containing plagiarized content or unethical research practices will be rejected, and appropriate actions will be taken.

  • Author Responsibilities: Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data presented in their manuscripts and for complying with all ethical guidelines in the research process.

6. Open Peer Review (Optional)

JAFEP may, at the discretion of the editorial board, implement an open peer review process, where the identities of the reviewers and authors are disclosed, and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. Authors will be informed if this process applies to their manuscript.

7. Reviewer Recognition

We recognize the valuable contributions of our reviewers. Reviewers who complete at least a certain number of high-quality reviews per year will be acknowledged on the journal’s website. Reviewers may also receive certificates or other forms of recognition for their contributions.

8. Appeals and Revisions

Authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision if they feel that the review process was not conducted fairly. Appeals must be submitted within a reasonable timeframe, and the editorial board will review the appeal process and provide a response.

This peer review policy can be adapted based on the journal’s specific needs and goals, and it can help ensure that the peer review process is transparent, fair, and robust.