Stages of the Peer Review Process 

The South East European Journal of Economics and Business is an open-access journal that uses a double-blind peer-review procedure, in which the identities of the authors and the reviewers remain concealed from each other throughout the process. The workflow described below applies to every manuscript submitted to the Journal, from initial submission to the final editorial decision.

 

STAGE 1 Desk review Editor-in-Chief Associate Editor ✗ Desk rejection possible	→	STAGE 2 Assigning associate/ handling editor Editor-in-Chief/ Associate Editors	→	STAGE 3 Assigning reviewers Handling Editor	→	STAGE 4 Peer review Reviewers	→	STAGE 5 Review Reports Handling Editor
▼
STAGE 6 Author(s) receiving reviews Handling Editor ✗ Rejection possible	→	STAGE 7 Authors' revision Author(s)	→	STAGE 8 Revised manuscript review Handling Editor / Reviewers	→	STAGE 9 Making the final decision Editorial team (Editor-in-Chief/ Associate Editors ✗ Rejection possible	→	STAGE 10 Informing the authors & Production Handling Editor/Production Editor

✗ Desk rejection. Manuscripts that do not pass these checks are declined at Stage 1. This early screening enables a quick decision, allowing authors to submit their work to another journal without delay. 
✗ Rejection possible – the manuscript may also be rejected following peer review (Stage 4) or at the final decision (Stage 9). Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and publication after Stage 10.

Stage 1:  Desk Review 
Every submitted manuscript receives an initial desk assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor to determine whether it is suitable for the South East European Journal of Economics and Business. This assessment considers whether the topic falls within the Journal's aims and scope; whether the submission guidelines have been followed, including word count, structure, referencing style, language quality, and full anonymization for double-blind review; whether everything needed for peer review has been included, such as the abstract, keywords, JEL classification codes, figures and tables, and funding information; and whether the manuscript promises a significant contribution to the existing literature.

Manuscripts that do not pass these checks are declined at this stage ("desk rejection"). This early screening enables a quick decision, allowing authors to submit their work to another journal without delay. 

Stage 2: Assigning a Handling Editor 
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor to an Associate Editor whose expertise matches the manuscript's field. The Associate Editor serves as the Handling Editor and manages the peer-review process for that submission.

Stage 3: Assigning Reviewers
The Associate/Handling Editor invites researchers who are experts in the relevant field to review the manuscript that has passed the initial assessment. At least two independent reviewers assess every manuscript, and the process is double-blind: the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout. Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest, and invited reviewers are expected to declare any conflicts of interest and decline the invitation if their impartiality could be compromised.

Stage 4: Peer-Review 
The reviewers examine whether the work is original and fits the scope of the South East European Journal of Economics and Business; whether the study design and methodology are appropriate and described in sufficient detail to allow replication; whether the manuscript engages with the relevant and recent literature; whether the results are appropriately and clearly presented; and whether the conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research.

Stage 5: Review Report 
Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript are expected to submit their report within the agreed deadline or to inform the Associate/Handling Editor if they are unable to do so. The review report provides the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript. The assessment considers the clarity and structure of the manuscript, the originality of its contribution, the relevance of the cited literature, the rigour of the research design and methodology, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented. The report concludes with one of four recommendations: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject/declined[MC1.1]. The Associate/Handling Editor follows the recommendations of the reviewers when making editorial decisions. In cases where there is a significant discrepancy between the two reviews, a third reviewer will be invited, and the final decision will be based on the additional expert assessment. 

Stage 6:  Author(s) receiving reviews 
Once the reviewers' reports have been received and considered, and the Associate/Handling Editor has made an independent assessment of the work, the authors are informed of the decision. The South East European Journal of Economics and Business aims to communicate a first editorial decision within 90 days of submission. The reviewer reports are shared with the authors, together with any additional guidance from the Editor.

A straight acceptance at this stage is possible but not common; most published articles go through at least one round of revision. It is very common for the reviewers to suggest ways to improve a manuscript before publication, either through a small number of straightforward recommendations (minor revisions) or through more substantial changes (major revisions). Authors are given time to amend the manuscript and resubmit it together with a point-by-point response addressing every comment; a two-column format listing each reviewer comment alongside the corresponding change is recommended.

Stage 7: Authors' revision 
The authors prepare a revised version of the manuscript, along with a detailed response letter that addresses each reviewer comment point by point and indicates the corresponding changes in the text. Where the authors disagree with a particular comment, a reasoned justification is expected. The revised manuscript must remain fully anonymised.

Stage 8: Revised manuscript review 
The Associate/Handling Editor evaluates whether the revision adequately addresses the reviewers' comments. Depending on the extent of the required changes, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for a further round of assessment, or the Handling Editor can provide additional comments to the authors. This cycle of revision and re-review continues until the manuscript is ready for a final decision or it becomes evident that the required standard cannot be met.

Stage 9:  Making a final decision 
Based on the reviewers' reports, the Associate Editor's recommendation, and the quality of the revision, the Editorial Team makes the final editorial decision: acceptance or rejection. The final decision rests solely with the Editorial Team and is based exclusively on the manuscript's scholarly merit, without regard to the authors' identity, affiliation, or any commercial consideration.

Stage 10: Informing the authors & Production 
The Associate/Handling Editor informs the authors of the final decision. Accepted manuscripts are transferred to the Production Editor for copyediting, proofreading, layout in the Journal's format, and assignment of a DOI. This is followed by open-access publication under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence, with authors retaining copyright. 

Timeframe of the Peer Review Process 

The initial desk assessment is normally completed within two weeks of submission. Authors can expect the first-round editorial decision, based on the completed peer review, within approximately three months of submission, depending on reviewer availability. The overall time from submission to final decision, including revision rounds, typically amounts to four to six months. These indications are averages and individual manuscripts may require more or less time.