Review Policy

The journal Smart Economy, Entrepreneurship and Security applies independent scholarly peer review as a core mechanism for ensuring the quality, reliability, and academic integrity of published research. The peer review process is designed to provide an objective assessment of manuscripts in terms of their scientific merit, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and alignment with the journal’s scope. The editorial policy is based on internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, including the recommendations of COPE and the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 Standard Terminology for Peer Review.

Peer Review Model

The journal operates a double-blind peer review model, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. All materials submitted for review are treated as confidential, ensuring independence and impartiality of the evaluation process.

Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment, including evaluation of its relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with formatting requirements, adherence to academic integrity standards, and a preliminary assessment of scientific quality. At this stage, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, professional reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. Wherever possible, reviewers are independent from the authors’ institutions. Both national and international experts may be involved in the review process.

Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Where necessary, including cases of significant divergence in reviewers’ opinions or interdisciplinary research, additional reviewers may be invited.

The evaluation is conducted using a structured review form and includes assessment of originality, relevance, methodological rigor, validity of results, clarity of presentation, and compliance with academic standards. Review reports are provided in written form and include reasoned comments and recommendations.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the manuscript, accept it subject to revisions, request substantial revision with the possibility of re-review, or reject the submission. The final decision is made by the responsible editor, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of revisions.

Revision Process

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are required to revise their manuscripts accordingly or provide a reasoned response. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation where necessary.

Confidentiality and Ethical Principles

The Editorial Board ensures strict confidentiality throughout the review process. Reviewers are not permitted to share manuscripts with third parties or use unpublished data for personal benefit. In cases of conflict of interest, reviewers must decline participation, and alternative independent experts are appointed.

Special Cases

When manuscripts are submitted by members of the Editorial Board or individuals involved in the editorial process, full independence and transparency are ensured by assigning the editorial handling to another editor and involving independent reviewers. Such submissions undergo the same double-blind peer review process as all other manuscripts.

Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals are considered by the Editorial Board and may involve additional independent review. A final decision is made after careful consideration of the author’s arguments and the results of any additional evaluation. Appeals must be submitted within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision.

Review Timeline

The overall review process, including editorial handling and peer review, typically takes between 4 and 8 weeks.