Peer Review Process

JOFEB employs a double-blind peer review system: the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other throughout the process. Each manuscript is evaluated by the editors and by at least two independent external reviewers.

Stages of the Review

1. Technical check. The editorial office checks the submission for completeness (title page, anonymized manuscript, declarations), compliance with the formatting rules and similarity with previously published work. Manuscripts that do not pass this check are returned to the authors before review.
2. Editorial pre-review. The editors assess whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal and meets the minimum standards of originality, methodological quality and language. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
3. External review. Manuscripts that pass the pre-review are assigned to a handling editor and sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. Reviewers recommend one of the following: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
4. Revision. Authors revise the manuscript in line with the reviewers' comments and submit a response letter explaining each change, or the reason a suggestion was not adopted. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the reviewers. More than one round of review may be required.
5. Final decision. The handling editor evaluates the reviews and the revisions and makes a recommendation. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editors. When the reviewers' recommendations conflict, the editors may consult an additional reviewer.
6. Production. Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, typeset and sent to the corresponding author for proof checking before publication in the next issue.

What Reviewers Evaluate

• Relevance of the topic to the scope of the journal and its contribution to the literature
• Clarity of the research question and the motivation of the study
• Adequacy of the literature review and the currency of the references
• Appropriateness of the data, sample period, methodology and econometric specification
• Reproducibility of the analysis and robustness of the results
• Consistency between the findings, the discussion and the conclusions
• Presentation of tables and figures, and the quality of the language

Review Time

The journal aims to complete the editorial pre-review within two weeks of submission and to communicate the first decision after external review within eight weeks. Authors are informed when delays occur.

Editorial Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by the editors or members of the editorial board are handled by another editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors, and go through the same double-blind review. The submitting editor has no access to the review process of his or her own manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by sending a reasoned letter to [email protected]. The appeal should explain the grounds of disagreement and, where available, provide additional evidence, data or information. Appeals are handled in accordance with the COPE guidelines and are answered within two months. The editors may uphold the decision, request a revision or start an additional review. Decisions on appeals are final.

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

Authors may withdraw a manuscript before it is sent to external review by notifying the editorial office. Once the review has started, a manuscript can be withdrawn only with a justified request approved by the editors, or when the review process is unreasonably delayed.