Peer Review

Peer Review Process

The Review of Socio-Economic Perspectives (RSEP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research.

Double-Blind Peer Review

RSEP operates a double-blind peer review system. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach helps ensure an objective, impartial, and independent evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts before submission. Reviewers are likewise expected to maintain confidentiality and avoid any actions that may reveal their identity.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • Originality and academic significance;
  • Compliance with ethical standards;
  • Quality of English language and presentation;
  • Adherence to the journal’s formatting and submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and subject knowledge. The journal seeks reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research under review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the literature;
  • Scientific and methodological rigor;
  • Theoretical and practical significance;
  • Clarity of research objectives and questions;
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation;
  • Validity of conclusions;
  • Organization, structure, and readability;
  • Adequacy and relevance of references;
  • Compliance with ethical standards.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision;
  • Accept with minor revisions;
  • Request major revisions and resubmission;
  • Reject the manuscript.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

In cases where reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may consult an additional reviewer before making a final decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Review Timeline

RSEP aims to complete the initial editorial assessment within 1–2 weeks of submission.

The peer review process generally takes between 4 and 8 weeks, although review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Authors are informed of editorial decisions as soon as the review process is completed.

Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

All submissions are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished material obtained through the review process for personal advantage.

The journal follows internationally recognized publication ethics principles and expects editors, reviewers, and authors to adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity.

Any allegation of plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct will be investigated in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation or publication of a manuscript.

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process concerning the affected manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written explanation to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed independently, and additional expert opinions may be sought where appropriate.

The journal is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, and in accordance with accepted publishing ethics standards.