Peer Review Process

Paraskevi Journal of Economics and Management Sciences (PJEMS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and independent peer-review process. Peer review is used to assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

PJEMS normally operates a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

1. Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts are submitted electronically through the PJEMS online submission system.

Upon submission, the corresponding author confirms that:

The manuscript is original.
It has not been published previously.
It is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
All listed authors have approved the submission.
Relevant ethical requirements have been satisfied.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editor assesses whether the manuscript:

Falls within the scope of PJEMS;
Presents a relevant research problem;
Demonstrates sufficient academic and scholarly quality;
Has an appropriate research design and methodology;
Meets the journal's basic submission requirements;
Demonstrates adequate engagement with relevant literature;
Complies with the journal's publication-ethics requirements;
Shows no obvious evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of misconduct.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is substantially outside the journal's scope or does not meet the journal's minimum scholarly requirements.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Subject-matter expertise;
Relevant research experience;
Academic qualifications;
Methodological expertise where required;
Publication and scholarly experience;
Absence of significant conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers can provide an objective and independent assessment of the manuscript.

4. Double-Anonymous Review

PJEMS normally uses double-anonymous peer review.

Under this arrangement:

Reviewers do not receive the authors' identities.
Authors do not receive the identities of the reviewers.
Review reports are communicated through the journal's editorial system.

Authors should therefore remove identifying information from the manuscript where requested.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are normally asked to evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript:

Originality

Does the manuscript provide an original contribution or meaningful advancement of knowledge?

Relevance

Is the manuscript relevant to the aims and scope of PJEMS?

Literature Review

Does the manuscript demonstrate appropriate knowledge of relevant and current scholarly literature?

Research Methodology

Are the research design, methods, data collection procedures, analytical techniques, and research procedures appropriate and adequately explained?

Results

Are the results clearly presented and appropriately analyzed?

Discussion

Are the findings properly interpreted and related to previous research and relevant theoretical or practical considerations?

Conclusion

Are the conclusions supported by the findings?

Presentation

Is the manuscript clearly organized, logically presented, and written in appropriate academic language?

References

Are the references relevant, appropriate, sufficiently current, and properly cited?

Ethical Considerations

Does the research comply with relevant ethical and research-integrity requirements?

6. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments.

A review should identify:

Major strengths of the manuscript;
Major weaknesses or limitations;
Methodological concerns;
Issues requiring clarification;
Relevant omissions;
Specific recommendations for improvement.

Reviewers should avoid offensive, discriminatory, personal, or inappropriate comments.

7. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantial further revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements before publication.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment.

Resubmit for Further Review

The manuscript requires substantial improvement and may be considered again after a new submission and further review.

Reject

The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in PJEMS.

8. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

A revised version of the manuscript; and
A response to the reviewers' comments explaining how each substantive issue has been addressed.

Authors may disagree with a reviewer recommendation, provided that they give a clear scholarly justification for their position.

The editor determines whether a revised manuscript requires another round of peer review.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the decision-making process, but they do not automatically determine the final editorial outcome.

The editor may request additional reviews where reviewer reports are contradictory, insufficient, or where specialist expertise is required.

10. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all associated materials as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
Disclose the content of manuscripts;
Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
Contact authors directly concerning the manuscript without authorization from the editor.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where a conflict could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Conflicts may include:

Recent collaboration with an author;
Personal relationships;
Institutional relationships;
Financial interests;
Direct professional competition;
Other circumstances that could affect objectivity.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations, including the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge does not influence peer review and does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

13. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or other substantive issue may appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Appeals should provide specific reasons and supporting evidence rather than simply disagreeing with the editorial decision.

14. Estimated Review Time

PJEMS aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on:

Availability of qualified reviewers;
Number of review rounds;
Manuscript complexity;
Reviewer response times;
Need for additional specialist assessment.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or publication period.

15. Ethical Standards

PJEMS expects editors, reviewers, and authors to adhere to recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing and research integrity.

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, manipulation of peer review, authorship misconduct, or other ethical concerns may result in investigation and appropriate editorial action.