Reviewing rules

All the 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 fulfills the criteria and checks the submission for plagiarism using the iThenticate software. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial review are treated as declined submissions.

The associate editor (Handling 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 used literature 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 about this matter.

Based on the editor’s initial review, the contribution proceeds to the peer-review process under the supervision of the Associate Editor (Handling Editor). In 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 at least 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 doesn't know the identity of the reviewers.

The evaluation is primarily aimed at meeting the following criteria:

1. Does the title of the paper correspond to its content?
2. Is the goal of the paper clearly stated?
3. Is the topic presented in the paper relevant, timely and of significant importance for science?
4. Is the research methodology appropriate and applied properly?
5. Is the paper clearly and concisely written and well organised?
6. Is the paper based on existing theory? Is it supported by a comprehensive and up-to-date theoretical background?
7. Does the abstract of the paper satisfactorily present the goals, methods and results?
8. Do the conclusions clearly summarise the main results and contributions of the paper?
9. Is the language of the paper (British English) correct?
10. Are there any formal mistakes in the paper?
11. 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 get 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's web page at the end of the year.

Conflicts of interest and editorial independence: To ensure editorial independence and to prevent potential bias, the journal applies strict procedures for manuscripts submitted by editors, members of the Editorial Board, or authors affiliated with WSB University (the publishing institution). Any editor with a potential conflict of interest — including institutional affiliation, collaboration, supervisory or personal relationships, or other connections with the authors — is required to recuse themselves from the editorial process and has no access to the peer-review workflow of the relevant submission.

In such cases, the manuscript is assigned to an independent Handling Editor, preferably from a different institution and/or country, who is solely responsible for the selection of reviewers, communication with reviewers and authors, and the recommendation of an editorial decision. Reviewers selected for such manuscripts must be independent and have no conflicts of interest or institutional ties to the authors or the publishing institution. The final decision is taken only by an editor without conflicts of interest, based exclusively on the peer-review reports and the academic merit of the manuscript.

To maintain international diversity and to minimise the risk of institutional bias, the journal monitors the share of papers authored or co-authored by individuals affiliated with the publishing institution and seeks to keep the annual proportion of such publications below 20%. Further details are provided in the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Decision: The Associate Editor (Handling 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 can 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 to 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 conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or the Associate Editor (Handling Editor), without re-sending the manuscript to external reviewers.

Editor-in-Chief notifies the authors about the result of the peer review process and has the right to comment on the review reports. If the author makes a protest about the review reports, the Editor-in-Chief and the Handling Editor responsible editor check the author´s objections and inform the author about the result.