Peer Review Process
Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees by double blind peer review for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor shall inform you the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 10 working days. Please notice that because of the great number of submissions that American Journal of Economics and Business Management (AJEBM) works on various steps of the review process. It consists the following stages.
- Submission of an original manuscript via electronic online submission;
- Quick and holistic judgement by the AJEBM's Main Editors whether manuscript fits the Focus and Scope of the Journal and is comprehensible. If it does not, the Author will be notified with an e-mail of rejection;
- Assignment of 2 managing editors and one Main Editor to the manuscript by the editor-in-chief (or by the deputy editor-in-chief). The role of the Main Editor on the Managing Editors Team to represent the voice of the author;
- Quick but more in-depth judgment and decision by the Managing Editors Team on whether the manuscript has to be rejected without sending it to the full scale peer review. The rejection should be based on being out of the Aims and Scope of the journal or on having unsalvageable problems with the quality of its argumentation, grounding, and/or research that would not promise an important contribution and productive dialogue in the educational counseling field (no revision is possible). If the Managing Editors disagree with each other or find the manuscript promising, the manuscript moves to the next step (2 weeks);
- The Managing Editors Team selects 2 competent reviewers in the appropriate field in or out of the AJEBM community and send them the manuscript aiming at review. If the invited reviewer do not accept the assigned job in a week or two, they have to be replaced with new reviewers. The reviewers provide recommendation to the editors, justifications, and suggestions (if appropriate) based on their own authorial judgment;
- The Managing Editors Team makes their authorial decision informed by the Reviewers’ Comments and their own authorial judgment: (“Decline Submission”, “Resubmit for (new) Review”, “(minor) Revision Required”, or “Accept Submission (as it is)”. If they cannot make the decision, the Editor-in-Chief is assigned to make it (or a Deputy of the Editor-in-Chief depending on circumstances) (1 week);
- If the manuscript is sent back to the author(s) for major or minor revisions, and the author(s) decide to follow the recommendations and resubmit the revised manuscript, there is a deadline for resubmissions. If the revisions are not submitted , the article will be automatically archived, unless there is a new deadline negotiated with the Managing Editors. In case the author(s) still wishes to pursue the publication in AJEBM, they will be asked to create a completely new submission. In case the author(s) decide to withdraw the manuscript they should inform the Managing editors right away.
Submission evaluation criteria:
- Value or usefulness to field or profession.
- Adequacy of design/accuracy of analysis.
- Presentation and interpretation of findings, discussion, and conclusions.
- Inclusion of appropriate implications for practice and/or policy.
- Important and timely.
- Consistency with existing literature.
- Overall clarity of ideas and expression.
- References to relevant existing work.
- Grammatical construction; writing style; use of non-sexist language