Peer Review Policy

Econova: A Journal of Business, Commerce, and Economic Research is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, academic integrity, fairness, and editorial independence. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process for research articles submitted for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before external peer review. The assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scholarly quality, compliance with submission requirements, and adherence to research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum academic standards, or do not comply with journal policies may be declined without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review model. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript without names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or other information that directly identifies them.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in business, commerce, economics, management, finance, or the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic or professional expertise and their ability to provide an independent and objective assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review if they cannot provide an impartial evaluation.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on relevant scholarly criteria, including:

• originality and contribution to knowledge;
• relevance to the journal's scope;
• clarity of research objectives or questions;
• appropriateness and soundness of the methodology;
• quality and adequacy of data and analysis;
• validity and interpretation of results;
• significance of findings and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant literature;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript; and
• compliance with applicable research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments to assist authors and editors.

5. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer review policy.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision does not depend solely on the number of reviewers supporting a particular recommendation.

7. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be reassessed by the responsible editor or returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

More than one round of revision may be required. A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

8. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

If reviewer reports differ substantially, the responsible editor will assess the manuscript and the reviewers' comments. An additional independent reviewer may be invited where further expert assessment is necessary.

The final decision will be based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and the substance of the peer review reports.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Decisions are based on the manuscript's originality, scholarly quality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal, reviewer assessments, authors' responses to revisions, and compliance with ethical and editorial requirements.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any submitted manuscript.

10. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on scholarly merit. Publication fees, advertising, sponsorship, commercial interests, or institutional relationships do not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

Editors and Editorial Board members must not handle manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict of interest. Manuscripts submitted by editors or board members will be assigned to another qualified editor and will undergo the journal's standard peer review process.

11. Ethical Concerns During Peer Review

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or other possible publication misconduct.

The journal will assess such concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics and related editorial policies.

12. Content Not Subject to Peer Review

Research articles published by Econova: A Journal of Business, Commerce, and Economic Research are subject to external double-blind peer review.

Any non-research content that does not undergo external peer review, such as editorial notices, corrections, or administrative announcements, will be clearly identified as non-peer-reviewed content.

13. Commitment to Fair Peer Review

Econova: A Journal of Business, Commerce, and Economic Research is committed to a fair, confidential, independent, and rigorous peer review process.

Manuscripts are evaluated on their academic merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and research integrity without discrimination based on characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the submitted work.