Peer Review Process

1. Introduction

Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing. A cornerstone of this commitment is our rigorous peer review process, designed to ensure the quality, validity, originality, significance, and clarity of the articles we publish. This policy outlines ERR's peer-review model, the roles and responsibilities of all participants, and the procedures followed. G&R employs a double-blind peer-review model, in which the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach aims to ensure impartiality and objectivity in the assessment of manuscripts. We adhere to the guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Description

  • Peer Review: The critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to a journal by experts in the relevant field who are not part of the journal's editorial staff. Its primary purpose is to provide editors with the information needed to make an informed decision on publication and to help authors improve their work.
  • Double-Blind Peer Review: In this model, Economic Resilience Reports (ERR)  ensures that:
    • Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers.
    • Reviewers do not know the authors' identities. This method is employed to minimize potential bias related to factors such as author reputation, affiliation, nationality, or gender, allowing the manuscript to be judged solely on its scholarly merit.
  • Role of Reviewers: To provide expert, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the scientific content and presentation of the manuscript.
  • Role of Editors: To manage the peer review process, select appropriate reviewers (including vetting any author suggestions), evaluate reviewer feedback, and make final editorial decisions.

3. Policy

  • Mandate for Peer Review: All scholarly contributions submitted to Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) , including research articles, technical papers, conceptual papers, and case study reports, undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process before any decision regarding publication is made. Certain submission types, such as editorials, invited commentaries, or book reviews, may undergo a different editorial assessment process, which will be clearly communicated.
  • Peer Review Model: Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) uses a double-blind peer review model for all eligible submissions.
  • Selection of Reviewers:
    • Reviewers are selected by the handling editor based on their demonstrable expertise in the manuscript's subject area, their scholarly reputation, their availability, and their ability to provide an objective, critical, and constructive assessment.
    • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest with the authors or the research before agreeing to review and must decline if a significant conflict exists.
    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) typically aims to obtain at least two independent peer review reports for each manuscript undergoing full review.
    • Author-Suggested Reviewers: Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) allows authors the option to suggest potential reviewers for their manuscript during the submission process. While suggestions are welcome, the final decision on reviewer selection rests solely with the handling editor, who will verify the suitability and credentials of any suggested reviewer and ensure there are no conflicts of interest. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside editor-selected reviewers.
      • Conditions for Suggested Reviewers: If authors choose to suggest reviewers, the following conditions apply:
        • A maximum of five (5) names may be suggested.
        • Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. Suggested reviewers should have appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area and must not have conflicts of interest with the authors or the research. Authors should provide each suggested reviewer's full name, affiliation, and professional email address. The handling editor independently verifies the suitability and independence of suggested reviewers and retains sole discretion over reviewer selection.
        • Prospective reviewers must possess a Scopus ID with a minimum h-index of 5.
        • They must have an active publication record in Scopus or Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals, with relevant publications within at least the last three years.
        • Suggested reviewers must be willing to volunteer their time, as ERR does not offer payment for peer review services.
        • They must permit their name to be displayed on Economic Resilience Reports (ERR)'s website (e.g., in an annual list acknowledging reviewers), should Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) implement such a practice.
        • Authors must provide the full name, current affiliation, and official institutional email address for each suggested reviewer. Personal email addresses (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo) are not acceptable for official communication regarding reviews.
        • Suggested reviewers must not have any close professional or personal connections to the authors that could lead to a biased review.
  • Confidentiality in Peer Review:
    • All manuscript materials, including the manuscript itself, reviewer reports, and all related correspondence, are treated as strictly confidential by editors, reviewers, and journal staff.
    • Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or its review to any third party without prior permission from the journal.
    • Information obtained during the peer review process must not be used for the reviewer's personal advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
  • Objectivity, Constructiveness, and Timeliness:
    • Reviewers are expected to conduct their reviews objectively and provide unbiased, specific, and constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.
    • All comments should be professional and courteous, focusing on the scholarly content rather than making personal criticisms of the authors.
    • Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe stipulated by the journal to ensure timely feedback to authors.
  • Copyright of Review Reports:
    • Peer reviewers who submit review reports to Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) retain the copyright of their review reports.
    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) will treat review reports as confidential communications. Anonymized review reports will be shared with the authors of the manuscript. ERR will not publish reviewer reports or disclose reviewers' identities to authors or third parties without obtaining explicit permission from the respective reviewers, except as required by legal processes or in investigations of misconduct.
  • Editorial Decision-Making:
    • The final decision regarding manuscript publication (acceptance, rejection, or revision request) rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor.
    • This decision is based on the evaluation of the reviewer reports, the editor's own assessment of the manuscript's quality and suitability for Economic Resilience Reports (ERR), and its adherence to the journal's scope and ethical standards.
    • Editorial decisions are made independently and are based solely on the scholarly merit of the work.
  • Appeals Process:
    • Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe there has been a significant misunderstanding, a procedural flaw, or evidence of bias in the review process, as detailed in Economic Resilience Reports (ERR)'s "Policy on Complaints and Appeals".
  • Guidance and Ethical Conduct for Reviewers:
    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) provides clear guidelines to its peer reviewers regarding their role, responsibilities, how to conduct a review, and ethical expectations, drawing from the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
    • Reviewers are expected to adhere to these ethical guidelines, including maintaining confidentiality, declaring conflicts of interest, and reporting any suspected misconduct.
  • Management of the Peer Review Process:
    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR)employs a robust online editorial management system to ensure an efficient, fair, and transparent peer review process. This system helps track manuscript progress, manage reviewer assignments, and maintain records.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

  • Manuscript Preparation for Double-Blind Review:

    • Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts in a way that conceals their identities from reviewers. Specific instructions include:
      • Submitting a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, contact information, and any acknowledgments. This page is not sent to reviewers.
      • Ensuring the main manuscript file (including figures, tables, and supplementary materials intended for review) is anonymized. This means removing all author names, affiliations, and any direct references to the authors' prior work if phrased in a self-identifying manner (e.g., use third-person phrasing like "Previous studies have shown [citation]" rather than "Our previous work showed [citation]").
      • Removing identifying information from the properties of the electronic file.
    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) provides detailed instructions for authors on how to anonymize their manuscripts in its "Author Guidelines" and "Manuscript Preparation Guidelines."

  • Reviewer Anonymity:

    • The journal's editorial management system is configured to ensure that reviewers' identities are not revealed to authors.
    • Reviewers are explicitly instructed not to include any information in their review reports or in their comments intended for authors that could reveal their identity.

  • Invitation to Review and Handling of Author Suggestions:

    • Potential reviewers are invited by the handling editor based on their expertise. The invitation includes the manuscript's abstract and clear instructions, including the review deadline.
    • Reviewers are required to assess for any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation and must decline if a significant conflict exists.
    • If authors provide reviewer suggestions in their cover letter or via the submission system, the handling editor will assess these suggestions. Suggested reviewers will be vetted against ERR's criteria (expertise, h-index, publication record, institutional email, absence of COI with authors, etc.). The editor may or may not choose to use author-suggested reviewers and is not obliged to provide reasons for their decision. The editor will also independently identify and invite other reviewers.

  • Conducting and Submitting the Review:

    • Reviewers are provided with guidelines and often a structured review form to aid their assessment. They evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, significance of contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards.
    • Reviews should include specific comments and suggestions for the authors to improve their manuscript, as well as confidential comments for the editor to aid in the decision-making process.
    • Reviewers are encouraged to alert the editor to any suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or redundant publication.
    • All review reports must be submitted through the journal's online editorial system by the agreed-upon deadline.

  • Communication of Editorial Decisions:

    • The handling editor carefully considers all reviewer reports (and may seek additional reviews if necessary) before making an editorial decision.
    • Authors are provided with the anonymized reviewer comments and the editor's decision letter, which explains the basis for the decision.

  • Manuscript Revisions:

    • If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all comments from the reviewers and editor in a thorough and systematic manner. A point-by-point response to the comments should accompany the resubmitted manuscript.
    • Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.

  • Ethical Obligations for Reviewers: Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) expects all reviewers to adhere to high ethical standards, including:

    • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and review process as confidential.
    • Objectivity: Provide an unbiased and impartial assessment.
    • Expertise: Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have sufficient expertise.
    • Timeliness: Submit reviews by the agreed deadline.
    • Constructiveness: Frame feedback constructively to help authors improve their work.
    • Non-Exploitation: Do not use information from the manuscript for personal or third-party advantage.
    • Disclosure of Conflicts: Declare all potential conflicts of interest.
    • Reporting Concerns: Alert the editor to any ethical concerns regarding the manuscript or the review process.
    • No Delegation: Do not pass on a manuscript to another person for review without first obtaining permission from the journal.

  • Recognition of Reviewers:

    • Economic Resilience Reports (ERR) values the critical contribution of its peer reviewers. While individual anonymity is maintained in the double-blind process, the journal may publicly acknowledge its reviewers annually (e.g., through a list on its website or in an issue) for their service, with their explicit consent (as indicated by reviewers, including those suggested by authors). Economic Resilience Reports (ERR)may also explore integration with services that provide formal recognition for peer review activities.

This Peer Review Processes policy is designed to ensure a high standard of quality, fairness, and integrity for all articles published in Economic Resilience Reports (ERR).

COPE resources