Reviewer Guideline
Peer Review Process
The Review of Management and Economic Engineering applies a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and the alignment of their academic background with the submitted manuscript’s topic.
Our peer review process is designed to:
- Maintain the highest standards of academic quality and integrity.
- Provide authors with constructive, evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.
- Ensure that published research contributes meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of management, economics, and economic engineering.
Each review is expected to demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, offering clear, well-supported recommendations while respecting the author’s scholarly effort.
Mission
To uphold excellence, rigor, and fairness in scholarly publishing by ensuring that every manuscript is evaluated impartially and to the highest academic standards.
Vision
To create a global platform where diverse academic voices—from various professional, institutional, and cultural backgrounds—contribute to shaping the future of research in management, economics, and engineering.
Values
- Diversity of perspectives: Encouraging a broad range of disciplinary, methodological, and cultural viewpoints.
- Constructive criticism: Providing feedback that is clear, respectful, and aimed at strengthening the work.
- Integrity: Applying consistent, transparent, and ethical standards throughout the review process.
Ethics and Confidentiality
The journal follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All aspects of the review process, including invitations, abstracts, manuscripts, reviewer comments, and editorial decisions, are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript or review without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief. This confidentiality obligation remains in force even after the article is published.
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest—financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal—that could influence their evaluation. Any suspected ethical issue (plagiarism, data manipulation, or duplicate submission) should be reported to the editorial office.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Reviewers must not use Generative AI tools to process or summarize confidential manuscript content, as this may violate the confidentiality agreement inherent in the peer-review process. If a reviewer chooses to use such tools for personal assistance (e.g., grammar suggestions in reviewer comments), this must be disclosed to the editorial office, and no manuscript content may be uploaded to third-party platforms.
Review form template can be consulted here.
