Peer Review Process

Sustainable Economics & Business Review (SEBR) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, objectivity, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to promote fair and unbiased evaluation.

The peer review process focuses on two primary aspects: the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope, and its theoretical and practical contribution to the fields of sustainable economics and business.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

1. Online Submission
   All manuscripts must be submitted exclusively through the SEBR Online Journal System (OJS). Submissions via email or other platforms will not be processed.
2. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)
   The Editor in Chief conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript:
   • Complies with SEBR author guidelines and manuscript template
   • Falls within the journal’s focus and scope
   • Meets basic academic and ethical standards
   Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected at this stage to allow authors to submit their work to a more appropriate journal.
3. Plagiarism and Similarity Check
   Manuscripts passing desk evaluation are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels will be rejected in accordance with SEBR’s plagiarism policy.
4. Editorial Assessment
   The assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality, relevance, and contribution to the development of sustainable economics and business practices. Manuscripts with limited novelty or contribution may be rejected at this stage.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
   Manuscripts deemed suitable are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s:
   • Originality and significance
   • Methodological rigor
   • Clarity and coherence of presentation
   • Relevance to theory, practice, and policy
6. Editorial Decision
   Based on reviewers’ reports and the editor’s recommendation, the Editor in Chief makes one of the following decisions:
   • Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
   • Accepted with Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required (typically 4–12 weeks).
   • Accepted with Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required (typically 1–4 weeks).
   • Accepted without Revision: The manuscript is accepted as submitted, subject to copyediting and proofreading.
7. Revision and Resubmission
   Authors receiving revision decisions must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments within the specified timeframe. Failure to respond within the deadline without prior notice may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.
8. Final Acceptance and Publication
   Manuscripts that successfully complete the revision process are accepted for publication and scheduled for release in the designated SEBR issue.

Review Timeline

• Initial desk evaluation: up to 1 week
• Substantive peer review: approximately 4–8 weeks
• Average time from submission to publication: approximately 10–12 weeks

Authors may contact the editorial office if they require clarification regarding the review status of their manuscript. SEBR is committed to ensuring a transparent, timely, and constructive peer review process that supports academic excellence.