Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are subject to a double-blind review process through an online system. The review process focuses on the manuscripts' novelty and contributions to accounting and business development.

Peer Review Process

• The corresponding author submits the manuscript and the Copyright Transfer Agreement through the EBIC: Economics and Business International Conference online system. 
• The EBIC Editorial Board will check the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations and the possibility of cases of scientific misconduct, including authorship, ownership, and plagiarism.
• The EBIC Editorial Board checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and sufficiently original and interesting. It then notifies the submissions and informs the authors if the papers are suitable for the journals. At this point, the Chief Editor may give the assignment to the editors. 
• The assigned editor sends invitations to at least two (2) appropriate reviewers. Therefore, the manuscript will be sent to two reviewers.
• Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
• All of the contributions of the EBIC are subject to a double-blind peer-review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.  
• At least two reviewers review every submitted paper. The online review process contains clear referee statements concerning the paper's publishing approval or rejection.
• In case of minor revisions, the article and the reviewers' opinions are sent to the author(s). The authors are asked to respond to the reviewers' comments and make the appropriate adjustments in the text. Then, the authors send back the corrected version. 
• The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide an additional opinion.
• If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive reviewer comments to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, the handling editor might do this follow-up review.