All papers submitted to the journal Forum Scientiae Oeconomia are peer-reviewed according to the following procedure:
Initial review: The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor evaluates each manuscript to determine if it fulfils the criteria and checks the submission for plagiarism using iThenticate software. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial review are treated as declined submissions.
The associate editor checks the quality of the article according to the following criteria:
- the theme and the character of the contribution corresponding to the criteria defined by Forum Scientiae Oeconomia;
- the formal treatment of the contribution following the Information for authors, including the prescribed formatting for a scientific article;
- citations and a list of the literature used, arranged properly and according to the existing standards.
The editor has the right to reject submissions that are not in accordance with the journal’s editorial purpose and do not meet the above criteria and inform the author of the decision made.
Based on the editor’s initial review, the contribution proceeds to the peer-review process through the associate editor. During the peer-review process, a minimum of two independent reviewers evaluate the quality of the article submitted and make a proposal regarding the further procedure.
Peer review: Manuscripts that pass the initial review are assigned to two independent reviewers according to their expertise in the particular field. All reviewers are PhD holders in the relevant academic discipline or have significant, long-term professional and teaching experience. The review process is double-blind - the reviewers do not know the identity of the author, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewers.
The evaluation is primarily aimed at meeting the following criteria:
- Does the title of the paper correspond to its content?
- Is the goal of the paper clearly stated?
- Is the topic presented in the paper relevant, timely and of significant importance to science?
- Is the research methodology appropriate and applied properly?
- Is the paper clearly and concisely written and well organised?
- Is the paper based on existing theory? Is it supported by a complex and up-to-date theoretical background?
- Does the abstract of the paper satisfactorily present the goals, methods and results?
- Do the conclusions clearly summarise the main results and contributions of the paper?
- Is the language of the paper (British English) correct?
- Are there any formal mistakes in the paper?
- Does the paper meet the formal guidelines of Forum Scientiae Oeconomia?
Approval for publication depends on the positive recommendations of the reviewers. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor invites an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.
If the reviewers suggest any amendments, the author(s) should consider them.
The list of reviewers is published on the journal web page at the end of the year.
Decision: The Associate Editor recommends to the Editor-in-Chief the acceptance / revision / rejection of the manuscript based on the review report received from the independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief takes a final decision on the acceptance of the paper and notifies the authors. The decision may be "Accept Submission", "Revisions Required", "Resubmit for Review", or "Decline Submission." If the decision is "Resubmit for Review", the manuscript has to be revised and sent out during the second round of peer review.
If the paper was sent back to the authors for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief notifies the authors of the result of the peer review process and has the right to comment on the review reports. If the author submits a protest pertaining to the review reports, the Editor-in-Chief and the editor responsible check the author´s objections and inform the author of the result.