This journal follows a double-anonymous peer review model, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This approach guarantees an impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts based purely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

All submitted papers undergo a rigorous evaluation process conducted by internationally recognized researchers and industry experts. The editorial board collaborates closely with these experts to ensure that theoretical insights are seamlessly integrated with practical applications.

---

1. Manuscript Submission and Review Process

• Originality & Language requirements: Manuscripts must be written in proper English and must not have been published or submitted elsewhere.
• Double-Blind Peer Review: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts, and the process typically takes 8 to 12 weeks.
• Review outcomes: Upon completion of the peer review, the corresponding author will receive an email with one of the following decisions:
  • Accepted for publication without changes.
  • Provisionally accepted, pending minor or major revisions.
  • Rejected for publication.

The Editor-in-Chief retains the right to reject any manuscript at any stage of the process, regardless of whether it was submitted by invitation or otherwise. In some cases, modifications may be suggested before publication to enhance clarity, coherence, or scientific rigor.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following key factors:

• Originality – The novelty and uniqueness of the research.
• Presentation & Structure – The clarity and organization of the content.
• Linguistic quality – The accuracy and fluency of the language.
• Scientific significance – The contribution to existing knowledge.
• Relevance – The alignment with the journal’s scope and readership.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must contact the Editor with a detailed justification for their appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor and another editorial team member who was not involved in the initial review. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

---

2. Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the academic rigor and credibility of Revista Economică. As a reviewer, your role is to assess the quality, originality, and validity of submitted manuscripts, ensuring they contribute meaningfully to the field of economics and business studies.

This guide outlines best practices for conducting a thorough and ethical review using ScholarOne.

Step 1: Understanding the Scope of the Review

Before accepting a manuscript for review, consider the following:

• Expertise – Only accept manuscripts within your area of expertise. If the topic is outside your scope, notify the editor promptly.
• Availability – Ensure you can complete the review within the deadline specified by the journal.
• Conflicts of interest – If you recognize the author(s) or have a prior connection (e.g., institutional affiliation, co-authorship, financial ties), inform the editorial office immediately.

Step 2: Initial Reading – Assessing the Manuscript at a High Level

Before diving into a detailed review, read the manuscript holistically to evaluate:

• Relevance – Does the research align with Revista Economică’s scope?
• Clarity – Are the research objectives, methodology, and conclusions logically presented?
• Novelty – Does the manuscript provide original contributions to economic research?

Step 3: Detailed Review – Evaluating Key Sections

After the initial assessment, analyze each section in depth:

• Title & Abstract – Do they accurately summarize the study?
• Introduction – Is the research problem clearly defined and contextualized?
• Methodology – Are the research methods appropriate, well-documented, and reproducible?
• Results & Analysis – Are findings clearly presented, with proper statistical or theoretical justification?
• Discussion & Conclusion – Are the study’s implications well-argued? Are limitations acknowledged?
• References – Are citations relevant, up-to-date, and correctly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines?

Step 4: Writing a Constructive Review

A well-structured review should be clear, professional and balanced:

• Start with a summary – Provide a brief, neutral summary of the manuscript’s main contributions.
• Highlight strengths – Acknowledge well-executed aspects, such as innovative methodology or strong data analysis.
• Provide constructive criticism – Address weaknesses objectively, suggesting specific improvements rather than just pointing out flaws.
• Use professional language – Maintain a respectful tone, avoiding personal opinions or unnecessary harshness.

Step 5: Making a Recommendation

At the end of your review, select one of the following options:

• Accept as is – The manuscript meets all scientific and editorial standards.
• Minor revisions – The paper is strong, but minor edits (clarity, formatting, minor data corrections) are needed.
• Major revisions – Substantial improvements are required in methodology, interpretation, or writing.
• Reject – The manuscript has serious flaws that compromise its scientific validity.

By following these steps, reviewers ensure that high-quality research is published, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in their field.

2.1 Ethical Guidelines in Peer Review

Maintaining ethical integrity in peer review is essential for ensuring fairness, transparency, and academic rigor. Below are the key principles every reviewer should follow:

• Confidentiality – The manuscript must be treated as privileged information and not shared with colleagues or discussed publicly.
• Unbiased judgment – Reviews must be objective and based on scientific merit, without personal bias, political influence, or competition-related concerns.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest – If the reviewer has a connection to the authors (past collaborations, institutional affiliations, financial relationships), they must disclose it or decline the review.
• Identifying ethical issues – If the manuscript contains plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations (such as lack of informed consent in human studies), reviewers should notify the editor.
• Responsible use of AI – If AI tools are used for language assistance or fact-checking, the final review must still be human-led, ensuring critical judgment remains intact.

By adhering to these principles, peer reviewers help maintain trust and credibility in academic publishing.

Using ScholarOne for Peer Review

Revista Economică employs ScholarOne for manuscript submission and peer review. The process follows these steps:

• Receiving the Invitation – Review the manuscript’s abstract and confirm your availability.
• Accessing the Manuscript – Download the paper from ScholarOne upon accepting the assignment.
• Providing Feedback – Use ScholarOne’s tools for:
  • Inline comments – Highlight specific issues.
  • Confidential comments to the editor – Raise sensitive concerns.
  • Final recommendation – Choose between “Accept,” “Minor Revisions,” “Major Revisions,” or “Reject.”
• Submitting the Review – Upload your comments and recommendation via ScholarOne.

Peer Review FAQs

• What is the review deadline?
  Standard review time is 8 to 12 weeks, depending on journal policies and reviewer availability.
• Is the peer review process anonymous?
  Yes, Revista Economică follows a double-blind peer review, ensuring anonymity for both reviewers and authors.
• Am I responsible for verifying all references?
  While not required, you should flag missing or suspicious citations.
• What if I disagree with other reviewers?
  Provide your independent assessment. The editorial team will synthesize all feedback for a final decision.
• What should I do if I suspect plagiarism or fraud? Report concerns to the editor, providing supporting evidence.

For any additional inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact the Editorial Office of Revista Economica via ScholarOne.

---

3. ScholarOne Submission System

The journal uses ScholarOne for online manuscript submission and peer review. ScholarOne is a comprehensive workflow-management system designed for scholarly publications. For more details on how to use ScholarOne, reviewers and authors can contact the Editorial Office at revista.economica@ulbsibiu.ro.

---

4. Reviewer Benefits

Peer reviewing is a voluntary and essential contribution to academic publishing, helping to uphold the quality and credibility of research. Although typically unpaid, peer review offers numerous professional advantages, including:

Why Become a Peer Reviewer?

• Gain insight into the editorial and publication process.
• Stay updated with the latest advancements in your field.
• Demonstrate expertise and contribute to the academic community.

Recognition and Rewards

Revista Economica highly values the academic contributions and professional expertise of its peer reviewers, recognizing their critical role in ensuring the rigor, quality, and integrity of published research. In appreciation of their efforts, the journal provides the following benefit:

• Full publication fee waiver for one article in which the reviewer is listed as an author.

This initiative reflects the journal’s commitment to fostering a collaborative and high-standard scholarly community.