Peer review

Peer review plays a vital and critical role in the publication of scholarly articles through assessment of validity, quality and originality of submitted manuscripts. It is considered to be the most effective and valid form of research. There are three types of peer review: open, single blind and double blind. The LLC “Business Perspectives” supports the double blind peer review. All articles which are published in the Journals of The LLC “Business Perspectives” are double blind peer reviewed.

Review process

  1. The corresponding author sends the manuscript and the cover letter, signed by all the authors of the manuscript (the manuscripts are sent via e-mail). At the first stage, the Editorial Assistant checks the structure, spelling, compliance of manuscripts with the authors’ guidelines, plagiarism, etc.
  2. At the next stage, the manuscript will be passed to the member of the Editorial Board (Handling Editor) who must read the abstract and accept the terms and conditions to exclude the conflicts of interest in order to proceed with the peer review process. Further, the Handling Editor determines whether the manuscript provides potential interest for readers and present importance to the scientists in the relevant field of the journal’s scope, judges if the topic of the manuscript corresponds to the aims and scope of the journal, assesses the novelty and relevance of the manuscript, its compliance with the requirements of the journal and whether the manuscript meets the editorial criteria.
  3. Manuscripts that don’t meet these criteria, as well as obviously poor manuscripts, will be rejected without sending for further double blind peer review.
  4. If the manuscript complies with the requirements of the journals, then the Handling Editor sends the manuscript for double blind peer review to two or more reviewers (if necessary). In the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff, selection of peer-reviewers is based on expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics (all the selected reviewers hold a Ph.D. and have recent publications in the field of the submitted manuscript). All the invited reviewers should accept the terms and conditions to exclude conflicts of interest, confirm that the manuscript fits the field of their interests, and check their availability. Then they decide to accept or decline the invitation. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. All the manuscripts are double-blind peer-reviewed, which means that reviewers do not possess any information about the authors’ identities and vice versa. Also, at this stage, the author will be informed that the manuscript was sent for the double blind peer review.
  5. After the manuscript has been reviewed, the Handling Editor inspects all the Referee Reports from the reviewers and then makes a decision. If the reviews differ significantly, the Editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
  6. At the last stage with point-by-point evaluation and comments, based on the suitability of selected reviewers and the recommendations, adequacy of reviewer comments and overall scientific quality of the manuscript, the Handling Editor makes one of the following decisions (which needs to be agreed by the Editor):
  • Publishable as it is.
  • Publishable with minor revisions specified in “Comments” section.
  • Reject, but encourage to re-write and re-submit with major revisions specified in “Comments” section.
  • Reject without further consideration.

If authors are required to revise the manuscript, they ought to provide the revised manuscript along with the Response to the Editorial staff. All the authors receive the reviewer’s comments immediately after the manuscript had been reviewed. If authors request a Referee Report, they receive it without revealing the identity of the reviewer and can appeal against editorial decisions responding to the referees with authors’ arguments and explanations. Manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers after authors’ revision, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Editor.

Expectations from reviewers

We strongly recommend that all reviewers get acquainted with and follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

During the peer review process, report preparation, and after refereeing, we expect from the reviewers to:

  • respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if reviewer can’t perform the review, including intentional delay;
  • declare if they are not experts in the field the manuscript is relevant to;
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) and seek advice from the Editorial Board in this case;
  • decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review or they are involved in any of the work with the manuscript or its reporting;
  • to provide honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the research and the manuscript;
  • send the completed report form along with the reviewed manuscript;
  • be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements to help Editors in their evaluation and decision;
  • suggest additional research if it helps strengthen or extend the work;
  • ensure that their comments and recommendations for the Editor are consistent with their report for the authors;
  • give any suggestions and comments based on valid academic or technological reasons;
  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential during and after reviewing.