General Review Policy
All research manuscripts submitted to the Eastern European Business and Economics Journal are subject to editorial screening and, where appropriate, independent external peer review. The review process is intended to support fair editorial decisions and improve the scholarly quality, clarity, and reliability of published work.
EEBEJ normally applies double-blind peer review. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation are normally reviewed by at least two independent specialists with relevant subject or methodological expertise.
Peer-Review Process
Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, file integrity, author information, declarations, formatting, and compliance with the journal’s basic requirements.
Editorial Screening
An editor assesses the manuscript’s relevance to the journal, originality, academic quality, ethical compliance, methodological adequacy, and suitability for external review.
Reviewer Selection
Independent reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, methodological competence, publication record, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
External Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide an evidence-based report addressing its strengths, weaknesses, required revisions, and publication suitability.
Author Revision
Where revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Editorial Decision
The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and any subsequent assessment before issuing the final editorial decision.
Initial Editorial Screening
Submission does not automatically guarantee external peer review. The editors may decline a manuscript without external review where it:
- falls outside the journal’s aims and scope;
- does not provide a sufficiently original or significant contribution;
- contains serious methodological, analytical, or reporting deficiencies;
- does not meet the journal’s language or presentation standards;
- lacks required ethical approval, declarations, or supporting information;
- contains excessive textual overlap or indications of publication misconduct;
- is not sufficiently developed for constructive external assessment.
Reviewer Assessment Criteria
Alignment with the journal’s academic scope and readership.
Novelty of the research question, evidence, method, or interpretation.
Engagement with relevant theory and contribution to scholarly knowledge.
Suitability, transparency, validity, and reproducibility of the methods.
Accuracy of analysis and appropriate support for the conclusions.
Relevance for business, economic policy, management, or institutions.
Compliance with ethical, authorship, citation, and disclosure standards.
Logical organization, academic language, and effective presentation.
Editorial Decisions
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial checks.
Limited revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Substantial revision and possible further external review are required.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but are advisory. Final responsibility for acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the delegated responsible editor.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- provide an objective, respectful, and evidence-based assessment;
- evaluate only manuscripts within their competence;
- declare actual or potential conflicts of interest;
- protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials;
- identify relevant omissions, unsupported claims, or citation concerns;
- avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Author Responsibilities
- submit an original manuscript prepared for double-blind review;
- respond carefully and professionally to reviewer comments;
- identify all revisions in the revised manuscript or response document;
- provide requested data, approvals, declarations, or clarifications;
- avoid simultaneous submission to another journal;
- notify the editorial office promptly of significant errors or ethical concerns.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Submitted manuscripts and associated files are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished material outside the review process without authorization from the journal.
Reviewers must decline an invitation where personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial relationships could reasonably affect their impartiality. Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from handling the manuscript, which will be assigned to an independent editor.
Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, confidential author information, unpublished data, or review materials to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external tools that cannot guarantee confidentiality and data protection. Any permitted use of assistive technology remains subject to editorial oversight, confidentiality requirements, and full human responsibility for the evaluation.
Conflicting Reviews and Additional Assessment
Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, request further revision, or make a reasoned editorial decision based on the manuscript’s scholarly merits. The number of reviewers may therefore vary according to the complexity and circumstances of the submission.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the evaluation. An appeal must provide a clear scholarly justification and address the relevant editorial or reviewer comments.
Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision where independence is required. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration, external re-review, or acceptance.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution to the journal’s field. Decisions must remain independent of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, professional status, political views, commercial considerations, or personal relationships.
Contact the Editorial Office
For questions concerning the review process, editorial decisions, appeals, or publication ethics, please contact the journal.