Peer Review Process and Policy

Frontiers in Business and Economics (FINBE) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. Our peer review process strictly follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. It aims to ensure the transparency, fairness, and academic rigor across a broad range of scholarly disciplines. Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the quality and credibility of academic publishing and depends on the ethical conduct of all involved. FINBE recognizes the vital role of reviewers and aims to provide them with clear guidance and expectations.

1. Type of Peer Review
FINBE uses a double-blind peer review system, meaning that the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors at any stage. Then, the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers. To support this process, authors must upload a title page (with full author details) separately from the main manuscript, which should be anonymized.

2. Reviewer Selection Process
Reviewers are carefully selected based on their subject expertise and familiarity with the manuscript's topic. The FINBE maintains a dynamic database of qualified reviewers. While authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers, these recommendations are non-binding and will be evaluated by the editorial team. Each submission is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers, after which the editorial board makes a final decision based on their evaluations.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality in perspective, methodology, or data.
Academic rigor and soundness of the methodology.
Clarity and coherence in the presentation of results, and whether conclusions are supported by evidence.
Relevance and accuracy in citing existing literature and sources.
Ethical compliance, especially with regard to plagiarism and research integrity.
Scholarly contribution to its respective field or discipline.

Reviewers are also requested to complete the Manuscript Evaluation Form by selecting the appropriate box. The reviewer's comments should be constructive, professional, and sufficiently specific to assist the author in improving the article. While language editing is not the primary responsibility of reviewers, constructive suggestions to improve clarity and style are welcome. The editorial team will conduct a final language and formatting check. In some cases, authors may be required to carry out comprehensive proofreading or stylistic revisions prior to publication.

4. Peer Review Workflow
Upon receiving a review invitation, reviewers should confirm their availability by responding through the provided system link. Once accepted, they may access the manuscript and submit their review either by filling out the structured comments section or uploading a detailed review file. Reviewers will then select one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission – Ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
Minor Revisions Required – Revisions needed but can be accepted without further review.
Major Revisions / Resubmit for Review – Substantial changes are required; another review round is necessary.
Resubmit Elsewhere – Not aligned with FINBE's scope or quality requirements.
Decline Submission – Serious weaknesses; does not meet publication standards.

5. Review Timeline
The typical review duration is between 1 to 3 months, depending on reviewer responsiveness and manuscript complexity. FINBE strives to provide timely decisions while maintaining review quality.

6. Final Report and Decision
The final decision to accept, request revisions, or reject a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on: