PEER REVIEW PROCESS

PEER REVIEW PROCESS OF THE FRONTIERS IN ENERGY ECONOMICS

Initial assessment

The peer review process is a fundamental part of research publishing. This process both the editorial board of the journal of “Frontiers in Energy Economics” and independent expert reviewers, who evaluate the submitted articles. Peer reviewers can recommend whether or not they believe an article should be accepted or rejected by the journal. The ultimate authority to make the final decision rests solely with the journal of FEE’s editorial board. The editors of the journal of FEE adhere to the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) when working with manuscripts, reviewers, and when organizing the review process. The editorial team verifies plagiarism using iThenticate software.

After an article is submitted to a journal, a journal editor screens the manuscript and decides whether or not to send it for full peer review. Only after clearing the initial screening is the article sent to two or more independent peer reviewers. Editors will consider the following aspects:

· Is the manuscript good enough quality to be sent for peer review?

· Does it conform to the aims and scope of the journal and has it followed the style guidelines and instructions for authors?

· Does it make a significant contribution to existing literature?

Unsuitable articles may be rejected without peer review at the editor’s discretion. If the article passes these initial checks, it will be sent for peer review.

Reviewer assignment

Once an article has passed the initial screening process, it’s sent for peer review. All manuscripts received by the editors of the journal of FEE undergo mandatory double-blind review, in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts in their field of study.

Reviewers assess the following issues of the manuscripts:

· Introduction

· Literature Review

· Methodology

· Results / Discussion

· Level of Contribution and Significance.

· Conclusion

The names of the reviewers are kept confidential. If one of the reviewer reports is positive and the other is negative, the article may be forwarded to a third referee for further assessment, or the Editorial Board may make a final decision based on the nature of the two reports. The authors are responsible for revising their articles in line with the criticism and suggestions made by the referees and the Editorial Board. If they disagree with any issues, they may make an objection by providing clearly stated reasons. Submissions which are not accepted for publication are not returned to their authors.

 

 

Review period

The review process in the journal of FEE takes on average from 1 to 2 months. This period includes time for the initial review of the manuscript, selection and assignment of reviewers, review preparation, revision and preparation of the final paper.

The final decision

Editors have various options when it comes to making a decision on an article. The journal of FEE applies the following decisions:

· Can be accepted as it is: the journal will publish the article in its original form.

· Can be accepted with minor revisions (reviewers will assess it after revisions): the journal will publish the article once the author has made some small corrections.

· Can be accepted with minor revisions (reviewers will not assess it after revisions): the journal will publish the article once the author has made some small corrections.

· Should be re-evaluated after major revisions: the journal will publish the article if the authors make changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.

· Should be rejected: the journal won’t publish the article or reconsider it.  

Following the review, all relevant information will be communicated to the author. Authors are expected to finalize their articles and submit the final version to the editorial office within one to two weeks. If the article is not returned within this timeframe (and no delay has been communicated), it will be considered withdrawn.

Conflict of interest

The journal of “Frontiers in Energy Economics” may publish articles by the editor-in-chief, his deputy, the scientific editor and members of the editorial board, but there should be no abuse of official position. Manuscripts of the journal editors are sent for double-blind review and only external experts are involved to review the manuscripts of the editorial board members. In the case of a conflict of interests regarding the editor-in-chief's manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by members of the editorial board.

Principles for selecting reviewers to ensure high-quality expertise

The editors of the journal of “Frontiers in Energy Economics” regularly attract recognized experts in the fields of economics, finance, international relations, etc. Reviewers are invited to work with the journal on the recommendation of the editor-in-chief, his deputy, members of the editorial board/council, and authors. If the quality of the review does not satisfy the editors, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.

Guidelines for reviewers

Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts

After receiving a manuscript, you should already understand the aims, key data, and conclusions of the manuscript. The first read will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the article. During the first read, it is important to focus on issues such as the main question of the research, originality of the topic, clearness of texts, and consistency of conclusions. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Even if the probability of rejection is high, make sure you read the whole paper. This is important because reviewers may find some positive aspects that can be communicated to the author and will help them with future submissions.

If reviewers decide that the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. However, reviewers may decide to reject the paper during this process. The benchmark for acceptance is whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter. For simplification of the review process, it is important to keep the following recommendations. Please, make separate notes for the authors, try to group similar concerns or praise together, and keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language, and the content. Not every submission is well written. Part of a reviewer's role is to make sure that the text's meaning is clear.

While doing section by section analysis, please take into consideration the following recommendations.

A well-written introduction sets out the argument, summarizes recent research related to the topic, highlights gaps in the current understanding of the issues, establishes the originality of the research aims, and gives novelty and topicality to the manuscript.

Regarding methodology, it is worth noting that academic research should be replicable, repeatable, and follow best practices. To follow the best practices, authors must follow standard guidelines, not compromise the health and safety of all participants in the study and maintain ethical standards. If the article fails to reach the relevant best practice standards, it is usual to recommend rejection.

In the results and discussion section, authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed.

The conclusions section may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section.

Reviewers need to check referencing for accuracy and adequacy.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor. The Eurasian Research Journal has access to software that can check for plagiarism.

The journal of “Frontiers in Energy Economics” has a formal structure of review reports. Please follow it.

If reviewers recommend acceptance, give details outlining why, and if any parts could be improved. Please, escape short remarks such as 'very good, accept'. In the case of revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review.

Guidelines for reviewing book reviews.

In the case of book reviews, please pay attention to the following important points. Make comments on the quality, clarity, accuracy, helpfulness, and accessibility of the content, mention its specific audience and subject area, state the uniqueness of the book, explain your perceptions of the book's strengths and weaknesses, and mention any available competing or similar books.

Reviewer rewards

The journal of FEE appreciates the time and efforts of reviewers and their contribution to the development of the field. Hence, the journal of FEE pays an honorarium to reviewers and provides reviewer certificates if needed.