Peer Review Policy

Regional and Business Studies

Submissions to Regional and Business Studies are subject to an initial evaluation by the Editorial Board and subsequent assessment by independent external reviewers, as described below.

Manuscripts submitted by an Editorial Board member or a reviewer of the journal, either as author or co-author, will not be handled or reviewed by the same individual to ensure full impartiality.

The journal does not consider manuscripts that do not meet the criteria of an original scientific research article (or review paper), or that fall outside the scope and aims of the journal.

Authors and reviewers must not be affiliated with the same department to ensure independence of the peer-review process.

All manuscripts, regardless of type, undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers invited by the Editor.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Board based on:

  • compliance with formal requirements
  • scientific relevance and contribution to knowledge
  • potential interest to the journal’s academic audience
  • plagiarism screening

Plagiarism detection is conducted using Turnitin software. Manuscripts with a similarity index above acceptable limits may be returned to authors for correction or clarification before further consideration.

Only manuscripts that meet the initial requirements proceed to peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant academic qualifications.

The peer review is conducted anonymously (double-blind), ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • compliance with formatting, citation style, and length requirements
  • clarity, language quality, and readability
  • quality and clarity of tables, figures, and illustrations
  • relevance, originality, and contribution to the journal’s scope
  • correct use of scientific terminology
  • logical structure and coherence of the manuscript
  • validity of literature review and theoretical background
  • methodological rigor and appropriateness
  • relevance and soundness of conclusions

Review Outcomes

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject

The final publication decision is made by the Editor based on reviewer reports.

Revision and Re-Evaluation

If revisions are required, authors must resubmit the corrected manuscript. The Editor evaluates the revised version and may:

  • accept the manuscript for publication
  • request further revisions
  • initiate an additional round of peer review if necessary

Final Proof Stage

Prior to publication, authors receive a final proof version of the manuscript for proofreading.

At this stage:

  • only minor typographical corrections are allowed
  • no substantive content changes or modifications to figures, tables, or appendices are permitted