Peer Review Process

Purpose:
To ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and ethically sound research, all manuscripts submitted to the World Journal of Economics, Business and Management undergo a rigorous and transparent peer review process in alignment with global editorial standards such as those expected for indexing in major databases, including Web of Science (WoS).

1. Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Authors submit manuscripts via the journal’s online submission system, following the journal’s submission guidelines, formatting, and ethical requirements.
  2. The journal acknowledges receipt with an automated email.
  3. Editorial Pre-Check: The Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to verify:
    • Scope alignment and topic relevance
    • Basic formatting requirements
    • Adherence to ethical standards (including originality and plagiarism checks)
    • Completeness of submission documents

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review Model

The WJEBM uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities.
  • This approach minimizes bias and enhances objectivity.

Each eligible manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

3. Reviewer Selection and Evaluation Criteria

  1. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor selects reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
  2. Reviewers assess manuscripts based on internationally recognized criteria such as:
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Soundness of methodology and analysis
    • Literature review and theoretical framing
    • Clarity of presentation and organization
    • Ethical standards and research integrity
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased feedback within the designated timeframe.

4. Editorial Decision Making

After receiving reviewer reports:

  • The Handling Editor evaluates the combined feedback.
  • Possible decisions include:
    • Accept without revision
    • Accept with Minor Revisions
    • Request Major Revisions
    • Reject

Authors are notified of editorial decisions via email with detailed reviewer comments to support revision or justification of rejection.

5. Revision and Re-Evaluation

If revisions are required:

  1. Authors resubmit a revised manuscript along with a response document addressing all reviewer comments.
  2. Revisions may be assessed by the original reviewers or additional reviewers at the editor’s discretion.
  3. Final acceptance is granted once reviewers and the editor are satisfied that concerns have been adequately addressed.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once accepted:

  • Manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, proofing, and DOI assignment before publication.
  • The journal ensures that final published content meets presentation standards and indexing requirements.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Integrity

  • All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential.
  • Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and ethical compliance throughout the process.

Estimated Timeline

Typical review timelines are as follows (subject to variation based on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity):

  • Initial Screening: 5–7 business days
  • Peer Review: 4–7 weeks
  • Author Revision: 2–4 weeks
  • Final Decision: Within 2 weeks of revised submission
  • Publication Production: 10–15 business days post-acceptance

Contact

For questions about the peer review process, please contact the journal editorial office:

Email: contact@wasrpublication.com