Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted for publication in Socio-Economic Analyses undergo a double-blind peer review process. This ensures that the scientific assessment of manuscripts is always independent, objective and impartial. The authors' identities are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the reviewers' identities remain confidential throughout the evaluation process and are not disclosed to the authors.

The peer review procedure is organised as a sequential editorial process designed to ensure independent and objective scientific evaluation, transparency, impartiality, and academic integrity. The process includes the following stages:

Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

The manuscript is to be submitted to the journal's official email address by the author, together with all required documents and supplementary materials, in accordance with the Guidenlines for authors.

Responsible party: Author

Stage 2. Desk Review

The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript to determine whether it complies with the journal’s aims and scope, technical requirements, scientific standards and completeness of the submitted documentation, as well as the Code of Ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the author for technical revision or rejected prior to the peer review process.

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief

Stage 3. Similarity Check

All manuscripts undergo a similarity check using StrikePlagiarism.com. If plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or other violations of publication ethics are identified, appropriate action is taken in accordance with the journal's Code of Ethics.

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief

Stage 4. Selection of Reviewers

Once the preliminary editorial evaluation and similarity check have been successfully passed, the manuscript is anonymised so that the author or authors cannot be identified. It is then sent for double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers, who are selected according to their scientific expertise in the relevant subject area. Before assigning a review, the editorial office checks for any conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest is identified, another independent reviewer is assigned.

Throughout the evaluation process, the identity of the authors is not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa.

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief

Stage 5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is evaluated independently by two reviewers using a standard journal review form. The reviewers provide a reasoned opinion and recommendations on whether to publish the manuscript, assessing the following:

- the scientific value of the study, including its originality, relevance, and scientific contribution;

- the methodological soundness, quality of the analysis, and validity of the conclusions;

- the quality of the manuscript, including its structure, the scientific literature used, and the language and layout.

- compliance with the journal's requirements and the principles of academic and publication ethics.

Reviews must be submitted within the period specified by the journal.

Responsible parties: Reviewers

Time frame: up to 20 calendar days

Stage 6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviews, one of the following decisions is made.

• acceptance without revisions;
• acceptance subject to minor revisions;
• acceptance subject to major revisions;
• rejection.

The author receives the anonymised comments and recommendations of the reviewers.

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief

Stage 7. Author Revisions

If revisions are required, the author must submit a revised version of the manuscript within the timeframe specified in the editorial decision. This timeframe depends on the nature and extent of the required revisions, but is usually between seven and 14 calendar days.

Responsible party: Author

Time frame: specified in the editorial decision

Stage 8. Re- Review

If the reviewers recommend further evaluation (acceptance subject to major revisions) or if the editorial team deems it necessary, the revised manuscript will be submitted for another round of peer review.

If there is a substantial disagreement between the two reviewers' opinions, the Editor-in-Chief appoints a third independent reviewer (adjudicator).

Responsible parties: Editor-in-Chief / Reviewers

Time frame: up to 20 calendar days

Stage 9. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript, based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, as well as whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s editorial policy and ethical standards.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not align with the journal’s aims and scope, do not meet the required scientific standards, or violate the principles of publication ethics.

Responsible party: Editor-in-Chief

Stage 10. Production and Publication

Once the manuscript has been accepted, the author’s name and institutional affiliation are added back in. The manuscript then undergoes production and typesetting, after which the author receives the proof for final approval.

At this stage, only minor editorial and technical corrections can be made; changes to the scientific content of the manuscript are not permitted. Once the author has approved the proof, the article is scheduled for publication in the relevant issue of the journal.

Responsible parties: Editorial Team / Author / Publisher

Related Documents

Documents related to the peer review process:

Instructions for Authors – contain the technical, structural, bibliographic and ethical requirements for manuscripts.

Peer Review Form – used by independent reviewers in the scientific evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Final Provisions

The peer review procedure applies to all manuscripts submitted to Socio-Economic Analyses for publication, and aims to ensure that the editorial process is conducted with the utmost scientific quality, objectivity, transparency, impartiality and academic integrity. All manuscripts are handled in accordance with this procedure, the journal’s Code of Ethics and editorial policy.

Matters or circumstances not explicitly covered by this procedure will be decided by the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with publication ethics principles and established international good practices in scholarly publishing.

PEER REVIЕW FORM

Journal of Social and Economic Analysеs

Faculty of Economics, St. Cyril and St. Methodius” University of Veliko Tarnovo

Instructions: The journal sticks to the best academic standards and therefore treats article publishing as creative process of cooperation between the author, the reviewers and editorial board. The purpose of the publishing recension is to evaluate and develop the academic quality of the applied publishing materials. The constructive criticism is a necessary part of these processes and therefore it should be represented in a professional style.

The reviewers should send the reviews to the editing board of the journal within 20 days.

If necessary the reviewers may put down remarks directly in the text, using the WORD option “Track changes”(it is valid for electronic copy of the reviewed work) or directly over the text by a pen (pencil), observing the symbols and the rules for corrections and remarking in case material copy of the reviewed work is submitted. 

Date of review:

І. REVIEWER:

ІІ. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:

ІІІ. SCIENCE CONTENT 

(check with sign  Х  your mark.  The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)

ІV. QUALITY OF THE WRITTEN WORK

(check with sign  Х  your mark.  The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)

V. DECISION 

(choose only one decision and check with X in the field)

VІ. RECOMMENDATIONS TO AUTHOR:

Confidentiality: the compliers guarantee that the reviews will remain anonymous and only for their use. The authors will receive only the remarks in the text (if applicable), the recommendations according to point V and the final result according to point VІ.