Reviewing Procedure

Peer Reviewers

The Es Accounting and Finance (ESAF) applies the procedure of double-blind reviewing of all papers. The papers classified as scientific ones must have two positive reviews according to the Act on editing scientific magazines. At least two reviewers are hired to work.Reviewers work independently of one another, and their identity is mutually unknown. Reviewers are obliged to evaluate the scientific value of the paper in a professional, argumental, impartial way and send it to the editor within a week. The reviewer considering him/herself incompetent for the topic or field the paper deals with is required to inform the editor about this. The review must be objective and a reviewer`s opinion has to be supported by certain arguments. The paper given to the reviewer in order to be reviewed is considered to be a confidential document.

The aim of the review is to help the editorial board make the decision on accepting or rejecting the paper. The goal also refers to the quality of the manuscript to be improved through the process of communication with the editor, authors themselves and other reviewers.

 

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are sent to the review only after the initial assessment being judged whether they, regarding their form and thematic scope, are suitable to be published in the ESAF - The Es Accounting and Finance. The special attention is paid to the fact that the initial assessment lasts no longer than it is necessary.  

In regular circumstances, the review process takes an average of one month. During the review process, the editor in chief may demand from the authors to send some extra information, including the primary data, if they are necessary for forming a judgment about the manuscript. The editor and reviewers have to keep such information as confidential ones and they mustn`t use them for other purposes. 

The average time of publication of a work since submission of the manuscript is 3 months.

 

Resolving inconsistences

The editorial board examines whether the review is neutral and meets academic standards in cases where the authors have serious and valid complaints to the review. The editor enlists additional reviewers if there is any reason to question the review's quality or objectivity.

When the reviewers' conclusions conflict with one another or are in some other way incommensurable, other reviewers are also involved.

The editor in chief alone has the authority to decide whether to accept an article for publication.