The peer review process at FRJ (Financial Research Journal) is a structured multi-stage workflow designed to ensure scholarly rigor, editorial transparency, and timely decision-making in accordance with publisher policies and COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org). This process plays a central role in validating academic research and enhancing the overall quality of published work.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team to determine its suitability for external peer review.
Screening Criteria: Editors assess completeness of submission files, compliance with journal formatting requirements, and alignment with the aims and scope of FRJ.
Ethical Screening: Manuscripts are evaluated for originality and adherence to publication ethics. FRJ employs the Samimnoor Plagiarism Detection Mechanism to support similarity screening. However, full responsibility for ensuring originality, avoiding plagiarism, and maintaining ethical integrity remains with the author(s). Editorial screening does not replace or diminish this responsibility.
Timeline and Outcome: This stage is typically completed within approximately 10 days. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal scope, fail to meet basic quality standards, or do not comply with submission requirements may be rejected without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to double-blind peer review, which forms the core of the evaluation process.
Reviewer Selection: The editor selects at least two independent expert reviewers based on subject expertise, scholarly reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. Institutional or verified professional emails are used to confirm reviewer identity.
Double-Blind Process: Reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers. Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts or any part of them into generative AI systems or large language models (LLMs), as this compromises confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess originality, methodological rigor, data quality, analytical validity, clarity of presentation, and the strength of conclusions, in addition to identifying potential ethical concerns.
Timeline: The average review period is approximately 8 weeks. Reviewers are expected to notify the editor in advance if delays are anticipated.
The Editor-in-Chief (or handling editor) makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment.
Decision Categories:
Immediate Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted without changes.
Minor Revisions: Small corrections such as formatting or minor clarifications are required.
Major Revisions: Substantial improvements are needed, including methodological or analytical revisions.
Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in FRJ.
Revision Process: When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. Revised submissions may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or assessed internally depending on the extent of revisions.
Conflict of Interest Handling: If an editor has a competing interest related to a submission, the manuscript is assigned to an independent editor to ensure unbiased handling.
Once accepted, manuscripts enter production, including copyediting and typesetting. FRJ is an open access journal, ensuring that all published articles are freely accessible immediately upon publication.
Appeals and Transparency: Authors may submit a formal appeal against editorial decisions in accordance with journal procedures. Typically, only one appeal per manuscript is considered, and the final decision is binding. Non-editorial complaints and ethical concerns are investigated following COPE guidelines.