Reviewer guidelines

 

Manuscripts submitted to the journal of the Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences FACE are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind model. Their comments are essential to ensure scientific quality and to support editorial decisions.

Reviewer Selection

To select suitable reviewers, the following criteria are considered:

  • Appropriate experience to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Adequate academic background (ideally a doctoral degree).
  • Specialization in the corresponding subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Promptly decline the invitation if unavailable and suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Submit the review within the established deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and prepare a clear and detailed report.
  • Report any suspicion of inappropriate conduct to the editors.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript received.

To ensure an efficient editorial process, reviewers are requested to carefully read the following guidelines.

The journal strictly follows the principles of COPE. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Timeliness of Response

Timely communication is essential for a fair and consistent review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly, based on the title and abstract.
  • Submit the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editors if an extension is needed.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if they are unable to conduct the evaluation.

Conflicting Interests

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious) before initiating the review.

Confidentiality

The assigned manuscript must be kept in strict confidentiality. It may not be shared, cited, or used prior to its publication.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports. If they wish to involve another person, prior permission must be requested.

Suspected Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplication, or unethical practices must be reported immediately to the journal.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

Reviewers are required to complete a form evaluating the following key aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: Original contribution and absence of plagiarism.
  2. Relevance and Impact: Value for the field and the journal’s audience.
  3. Scientific Rigor: Methodological quality and soundness of conclusions.
  4. Research Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards.
  5. Language Quality: Clear writing and freedom from errors.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript.