Double-Blind Peer Review

This journal uses double-blind peer review policy, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
After desk rejection, the received articles will be sent to at least 2 expert reviewers in the relevant field for evaluation, without the author's name. The final acceptance is based on the final opinions of the reviewers and subject to the approval of the editorial board.

 Peer Review Process in Journal of Iranian Economic Issues

This is a process by which experts (as reviewers) evaluate scholarly the articles submitted to the journal. The objective is to ensure high quality published scientific results. However, peer reviewers do not make the final decision to accept or reject papers for publication. At most, they recommend a decision. The decision-making authority rests solely with The Journal editor and the journal’s editorial board. The Journal decision-making process includes as follow:

1. Registration in the Journal’s website by the corresponding author and providing the full affiliation of all authors. Hereinafter, the paper with the proper format, as requested by the journal, can be submitted to the journal.
2. After a paper is submitted to the journal, the Journal’s editor in chief and/or a member of editorial board review the manuscript and decide about desk rejection or acceptance. At this stage the paper may also send back to the author to reformat the paper or any other corrections (if any) to meet the minimum requirements of the Journal.
3. In case of desk acceptance, two peer reviewers are allocated to review the manuscript. This is also done by the editor in chief or by the editorial board.

The peer review is a double-blind process, which means that both the reviewers and authors identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

4. The editor in chief considers the peer reviewers’ reports along with the evaluation form (completed by the reviewers) and make a final decision as follow:

a- If at least two reviewers recommend rejecting the paper, then the editor may reject the paper at this stage.

b- If at least two reviewer requests a correction, then the paper is sent back to the author to provide corrections and/or appropriate responses to the reviewer’s comments.

c- If one reviewer requests a major correction, and the other one reject, paper will send to 3th reviewer.

5- As soon as the corrected version revision of the paper along with the responses to the reviewers’ comments are submitted to the journal (normally within two weeks), they will be checked by the editor in chief and then are sent to one of the reviewers for final consideration.

6- Based on the full peer review steps the final decision is made by the editorial board.

7- If a paper is rejected, the corresponding author will be formally informed by the Journal administrative office.

8- The papers are published in the journal based on “first come first served” policy.

9- Preliminary evaluation is under 10 days.

10- The average time to complete the review process of articles in this journal is between 4 to 6 months.

 journal’s processes and policies for identification of/dealing with allegations of misconduct (eg, plagiarism, falsification/fabrication of data, etc).