Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

The peer review process of manuscripts submitted to Acta Academiae Beregsasiensis. Economics is designed to ensure the high scientific and theoretical quality of published materials and to select the most relevant and valuable research contributions. The journal is committed to transparent, fair, and rigorous evaluation in accordance with international publishing ethics standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Manuscript Processing Stages

The Editorial Board adheres to a structured, multi-stage review process that ensures transparency, academic integrity, and scholarly rigour.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editors. At this stage, manuscripts are assessed for compliance with the journal’s scope and subject matter, as well as with the formal requirements outlined in the “For Authors” section of the journal’s website. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be returned to authors without external review.

2. Academic Integrity Check

All manuscripts undergo a systematic check for textual similarity using the StrikePlagiarism system, which identifies text overlaps and potential cases of unauthorised borrowing. Manuscripts with an unacceptable level of similarity may be rejected or returned to authors for revision prior to further consideration.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are subjected to double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. This approach ensures impartiality, objectivity, and transparency in scholarly evaluation.

An anonymised version of the manuscript is forwarded to:

  • a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant subject area;
  • an external reviewer — a Ukrainian or international scholar specialising in the same field as the manuscript’s author(s). Reviewers are identified through academic search systems and via direct invitations from the Editorial Board.

On behalf of the Editorial Board, each reviewer receives a formal review request accompanied by the anonymised manuscript and a standardised review form.

3. Review Timeline

Review period: 1 to 8 weeks from the date the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

The Editorial Board endeavours to minimise processing times while maintaining the quality and thoroughness of the review. Authors are informed of significant delays if they occur.

4. Reviewer Selection and Eligibility Criteria

Both Ukrainian and international scholars with demonstrated expertise and research experience in the relevant field are invited to serve as reviewers for Acta Academiae Beregsasiensis. Economics.

4.1 Selection Criteria

  • alignment of the reviewer’s academic competence with the subject matter of the submitted manuscript;
  • a record of relevant scholarly publications in peer-reviewed journals;
  • proven research and expert activity in the relevant field;
  • independence and objectivity, including the absence of professional, financial, or personal relationships that could compromise impartiality;
  • absence of conflicts of interest (e.g., no shared affiliation or co-authorship within the past five years);
  • adherence to the ethical principles of scholarly publishing as set out by COPE;
  • quality and timeliness of previous reviews, where applicable.

Priority consideration is given to scholars who are active participants in international research projects, publish in leading peer-reviewed journals, and demonstrate a high level of professional responsibility.

5. Reviewer Obligations

By agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer undertakes to:

  • provide an objective, well-reasoned, and constructive assessment within the agreed timeframe;
  • evaluate the manuscript impartially, without any personal bias;
  • possess sufficient scholarly expertise to assess the work adequately;
  • comply with publication ethics standards and maintain confidentiality;
  • refrain from using materials from unpublished manuscripts for personal purposes;
  • remain available to respond to clarifying questions from the editorial board.

6. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects:

  • correspondence between the content and the title;
  • relevance and originality of the research problem;
  • justification of the scientific and practical significance;
  • logical coherence and persuasiveness of argumentation and conclusions;
  • compliance with research ethics and accuracy of bibliographic references.

The review must include an assessment of the author’s personal contribution and adherence to academic writing conventions.

7. Review Outcomes and Recommendations

✓ Accept as submitted — the manuscript is accepted for publication without revision.
~ Minor revisions required — accepted subject to addressing minor comments, without re-review.
↺ Major revisions required — requires substantial revision and will be subject to re-review.
✗ Reject — the manuscript is not recommended for publication.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision is made by the Editorial Board based on peer review outcomes, editorial conclusions, and compliance with integrity standards. The Board reserves the right to request additional revisions or make a final decision that differs from reviewer recommendations if justified. Authors will be notified and provided with anonymised comments.

9. Appeals

Authors who believe that a rejection decision was made in error may submit a written, substantiated appeal to the Editorial Board. The Board will consider all appeals in good faith and respond within a reasonable timeframe.