Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Global Economy (JGE) is committed to a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous process for evaluating scholarly contributions.
The peer-review process applied to a submission depends on the type and purpose of the contribution. JGE distinguishes between regular scholarly articles that require external peer review and contributions that are considered through an editorial process.
1. Regular Research Articles
Regular research articles submitted to JGE are subject to double-blind peer review.
Under the double-blind system, the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other throughout the peer-review process, to the extent reasonably possible.
Manuscripts that pass the journal's initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers assess the manuscript on the basis of factors including:
- originality and contribution to knowledge;
- relevance to the aims and scope of JGE;
- clarity of research objectives or questions;
- adequacy and appropriateness of methodology;
- quality of data, analysis, and interpretation;
- validity of conclusions;
- engagement with relevant literature; and
- overall scholarly quality.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions are first examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate member of the Editorial Team.
The initial assessment considers:
- whether the submission falls within the journal's aims and scope;
- whether it meets basic academic and ethical requirements;
- whether the manuscript is sufficiently developed for external review;
- whether the submission follows the journal's basic submission requirements; and
- whether there are apparent concerns relating to originality, plagiarism, or research integrity.
A manuscript may be declined at the editorial screening stage without external peer review if it is outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for consideration.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
For manuscripts requiring external peer review, JGE normally uses a double-blind peer-review process.
The journal takes reasonable steps to prevent the identities of authors and reviewers from being disclosed to each other. Authors should therefore avoid unnecessary identifying information in the manuscript submitted for review.
The use of double-blind review does not guarantee that the identities of authors or reviewers can never be inferred, particularly in highly specialized fields or where research has previously been publicly presented.
4. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an independent scholarly assessment.
Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and should decline an assignment where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
Further details are provided in the Guidelines for Reviewers.
5. Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, and the overall scholarly merits of the submission.
Possible decisions may include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The Editor may request additional review where reviewer recommendations are substantially different or where further expert assessment is considered necessary.
A reviewer recommendation is advisory; the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.
6. Revision and Resubmission
Where revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response to the editorial and reviewer comments.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, evaluated by the editor or additional reviewers.
A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
7. Conference Papers and Proceedings
Papers submitted through or arising from conferences organized or supported by RCSS may follow a separate editorial process.
Unless the relevant conference or publication announcement expressly states that external peer review will be conducted, conference papers selected for publication in conference proceedings are subject to editorial assessment rather than the regular double-blind peer-review process described for regular research articles.
Editorial assessment may consider the relevance of the paper to the conference theme, academic quality, originality, presentation, and compliance with the requirements communicated to conference participants.
Where a conference publication is explicitly announced as peer reviewed, the review procedure stated for that particular conference will apply.
8. Editorials, Commentaries and Invited Contributions
Editorials, commentaries, invited articles, opinion or perspective pieces, and similar contributions do not normally undergo external peer review.
Such contributions are evaluated through an appropriate editorial process.
The Editor or Editorial Team may assess their:
- relevance to the journal;
- scholarly or intellectual value;
- accuracy and clarity;
- appropriateness of content;
- originality; and
- compliance with the journal's ethical and publication standards.
The Editor may seek expert advice where considered necessary.
9. Reviews and Other Non-Regular Contributions
Book reviews, review essays, reports, announcements, and other non-regular scholarly contributions may be considered through an editorial process rather than external peer review, depending on their nature and purpose.
Where a particular contribution is subject to external review, the applicable review process will be communicated or stated by the journal.
10. Confidentiality
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other information obtained during the review process are treated as confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information from a submission for personal or professional advantage.
Further requirements concerning confidentiality are provided in the Guidelines for Reviewers and Guidelines for Editors.
11. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns
Peer review does not replace the journal's responsibility to address concerns relating to research or publication ethics.
JGE may conduct appropriate checks for plagiarism, duplicate publication, conflicts of interest, and other potential forms of academic or publication misconduct.
Where concerns arise, the journal will follow its relevant publication-ethics policies.
12. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated materials.
Unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer reports, personal information, or other confidential material should not be uploaded to generative AI tools or external systems where confidentiality cannot be adequately assured.
Reviewers and editors remain responsible for the content and integrity of their assessments and decisions.
Further requirements are provided in the journal's Policy on the Use of Generative AI (GenAI).
13. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or other substantive issue has affected the decision.
Appeals should provide clear and specific reasons and will be considered by the journal in accordance with its editorial procedures.
Complaints concerning peer review, editorial conduct, or publication ethics will be considered fairly and confidentially where appropriate.
14. Responsibility for the Peer-Review Process
JGE considers peer review an important mechanism for maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.
The journal seeks to ensure that external peer review is used where appropriate and that contributions not requiring external peer review are nevertheless subject to appropriate editorial scrutiny.
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team are responsible for ensuring that the review and editorial processes are applied consistently and fairly.
