THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process

• CEREM applies the principle of double-blind peer review.
• The initial selection by the editorial team (relevance of topic, fulfilment of technical standards, plagiarism checking, …..) will take at maximum a few weeks.
• Articles submitted for publication in CEREM are assessed by the editorial team on compliance with the focus and scope of the journal and the editorial requirements (abstract, keywords, bibliography, JEL codes, etc.).
• The article will be assessed based on the principles of the Publication and Research Ethics (https://www.cerem-review.eu/research-and-publication-ehtics/):

• The work should be original with proper citations.
• The work should not have been published previously somewhere else, and is not under consideration for publication somewhere else.
• All interests that could lead to biases in the article should be expressed (e.g., grants, funding, connection with the subject of research).
• In case of empirical research, the data should be presented in an applicable way.
• The first review round takes on average about six weeks.
• The reviews are carried out by experts in the field, who need to declare a lack of conflict of interest. Based on their review, the article may be accepted immediately, subject to revision, or plain rejection. More review rounds will take place in case of need.

The reviewers will assess articles according to the following categories (when applicable):

1. Relevance of the topic.
2. Match with profile of the journal.
3. Scientific level.
4. Goal (Is the goal of the paper focused, clearly stated, and can be feasibly dealt with within the scope of the article?).
5. Literature used (Is the literature properly selected? Are there important papers the author(s) have not mentioned?).
6. Conclusion (Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by analysis and/ or data?).
7. Does the article contain new ideas?
8. Is the article original, i.e., are the ideas presented important in comparison to the present state of the art?
9. Application of results (Can the result of the paper be applied in practice or contribute to the development of theory?).
10. Methodological aspects (Are proper research methods used and applied? Are research data properly presented and analysed?).
11. Clarity of arguments (Are the arguments presented in a clear, transparent and logical way?).
12. Logic of structure (Is the structure of the article clear, coherent and consequent?).
13. Illustrations and tables (Are the illustrations used, such as tables, figures and diagrams, properly designed and presented?).
14. References (Are the references correctly quoted and written?).
15. Formal and language issues (Is the article written using proper, understandable and scientific language?).
16. Level of English language (Does the English used in the paper fulfil the standards of a scientific article?).
17. Good scientific practice (Does the article fulfil standards of good scientific practice in terms of plagiarism, ghost-writing, guest authorship, etc.?).

The reviews are confidential. Comments should be constructive and professional. The reviewers are expected to deliver the reviews in due time, and inform the editor as soon as possible in case of delay. Reviewers should contact the editor immediately in case of suspicion of any type of scientific malpractice. Comments and critique should be constructive, formulated in a sensible way. Reviewers may identify relevant uncited work and additional empirical work the author(s) should consider in the paper.