Peer Review Process

The Journal of Innovation and Inclusive Economics (JIIE) applies a rigorous double blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and integrity of published articles. Peer review is intended to evaluate the scholarly contribution of a manuscript and its consistency with the journal’s focus on innovation, inclusion, and economic analysis.

1. Editorial Assessment

Each submitted manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team. This assessment examines the relevance of the topic to the journal’s scope, the clarity of the research question and argument, compliance with basic formatting requirements, and adherence to publication ethics. Similarity checking software is used to identify potential plagiarism. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or raise serious academic or ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to at least two external reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter. JIIE uses a double blind review system, in which both author and reviewer identities are concealed. Reviewers are selected to ensure independence and to avoid conflicts of interest.

3. Review Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts with reference to:

clarity and coherence of the argument
theoretical positioning and engagement with relevant literature
appropriateness and rigor of the methodology
quality and credibility of data and analysis
contribution to knowledge in business, economics, development, or accounting

Reviewers provide a reasoned recommendation to accept, request minor revision, request major revision, or reject the manuscript. Reviews are expected to be constructive and to support authors in improving their work.

4. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes a decision on the manuscript. In cases where reviewer recommendations diverge substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or make a reasoned editorial judgement based on the reports received.

5. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a structured response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed. Minor revisions are normally assessed by the editor, while major revisions may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

6. Final Review and Acceptance

Once the editor is satisfied that all substantive issues have been addressed, the manuscript may be accepted for publication. Prior to publication, the manuscript undergoes final checks for language clarity, formatting consistency, and reference accuracy.