Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer review is essential to the quality, validity, originality, and integrity of articles published in EBGC. These guidelines follow the reviewer guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Peer Review Process

  • EBGC uses a double-blind review: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities.
  • Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are reviewed by one to two reviewers, as described in the Peer Review Process page.
  • Reviewers give objective, constructive, and timely feedback. The editor makes the final decision; reviewer recommendations inform that decision.

2. Before Accepting an Invitation

  • Check that the manuscript matches your expertise.
  • Make sure you can complete the review within the time given by the journal.
  • Disclose any conflict of interest to the editor, and decline if you cannot be impartial.
  • Do not pass the review to another person without the editor’s approval.

3. Confidentiality

  • Treat the manuscript and all related materials as confidential, during and after the review.
  • Do not share any part of the manuscript or use unpublished information for your own benefit.
  • Do not try to identify or contact the authors.

4. Ethical Conduct

  • Assess the scientific content, not the authors’ reputation, affiliation, nationality, or gender.
  • Write comments that are respectful, specific, and supported by reasons.
  • Recommend citing your own work only when it is truly relevant.
  • Report suspected misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification) confidentially to the editor.

5. Evaluation Criteria

  1. Originality and contribution to economics, business, or government studies.
  2. Fit with the journal’s Focus and Scope and clarity of the research problem.
  3. Accuracy of the title and abstract.
  4. Quality of the introduction, literature review, research gap, and hypotheses or research questions.
  5. Suitability of the research design, data, and methods.
  6. Appropriateness of the data analysis.
  7. Clarity and accuracy of results, tables, and figures.
  8. Depth of discussion, implications, and limitations.
  9. Conclusions that are supported by the results.
  10. Relevance and currency of the references.

6. Review Report and Recommendation

  • Complete the Reviewer Form and submit it through the journal system.
  • Comments to authors: strengths, major concerns, and minor issues, referring to specific sections where possible.
  • Confidential comments to the editor: serious methodological or ethical concerns.
  • Recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, consistent with your assessment.
  • Inform the editor early if you expect a delay.

7. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript or their review to generative AI tools, because this breaks confidentiality. AI may be used only to improve the language of the reviewer’s own comments, without including any confidential information, and must never replace the reviewer’s own scientific judgement. See also the journal’s AI Policy.