Evaluation by peers
EconoQuantum applies a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the editorial process. This mechanism is intended to ensure the impartiality, scientific quality, and academic integrity of manuscripts submitted for consideration.
Reviewers play a fundamental role in maintaining the journal’s standards of academic excellence. By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, they commit to acting with professionalism, objectivity, confidentiality, and adherence to the ethical principles that govern scholarly communication.
Acceptance of the Review and Response Time
Reviewers should accept an invitation to review only when they possess the expertise and knowledge required to provide an informed assessment of the manuscript’s subject matter and have sufficient availability to complete the review within the timeframe established by the journal.
The standard period for submitting a review report is up to four weeks from the acceptance of the invitation. Under exceptional circumstances, a reasonable extension may be granted, provided that it is requested in a timely manner and approved by the Editorial Board.
When invited reviewers are unable to accept the assignment, they may suggest potential experts qualified to undertake the review. Such recommendations must be based solely on academic qualifications and subject-matter expertise, avoiding any personal considerations or circumstances that could compromise the impartiality of the process.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The information contained therein may not be used, disclosed, shared, or discussed with third parties. Reviewers must also refrain from establishing direct contact with authors regarding the manuscript under evaluation. Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the completion of the review process.
Objectivity and Independence
Review reports must be prepared objectively, impartially, and supported by sound academic arguments. Comments and recommendations should contribute to strengthening the scientific, methodological, and expository quality of the manuscripts.
If any personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflict of interest exists that could affect the independence of the reviewer’s judgment, it must be disclosed immediately to the Editorial Board, and the reviewer must refrain from participating in the evaluation process.
Likewise, if reviewers identify the possible authorship of a manuscript during the review process or consider that they do not possess sufficient expertise to provide a specialized assessment, they should inform the journal so that the appropriateness of continuing the review can be determined.
Suspected Ethical Misconduct
Reviewers must inform the Editorial Board of any indication of conduct that may violate academic ethics identified during the review process. Such situations include, but are not limited to, possible cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, redundant publication, omission of relevant references, data manipulation, or any other practice that may compromise research integrity.
When irregularities are suspected, reviewers should communicate their concerns to the journal and refrain from conducting independent investigations unless additional information or specialized advice is requested by the Editorial Board.
Review Report
The evaluation should consider the manuscript as a whole, taking into account aspects such as the originality and relevance of the contribution, theoretical and methodological rigor, quality of the analysis, consistency of the results, relevance of the conclusions, and clarity of presentation.
Comments should be expressed respectfully, constructively, and with sufficient justification. Reviewers are required to complete the evaluation form provided by the journal and support their recommendations with clear academic arguments that contribute to strengthening both the editorial process and scientific output.
_
