Finance Innovations Digest applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of all published articles. This process is conducted in accordance with ethical standards and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Double-Blind Review Process
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to ensure objectivity and fairness.
-
Author anonymity: Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgments.
-
Reviewer anonymity: Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
2. Submission and Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and adherence to ethical standards.
Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using plagiarism detection tools. Submissions that do not meet the journal’s standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.
3. Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research experience and must not have any conflicts of interest or institutional affiliation with the authors.
4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
-
Originality and contribution to the field
-
Methodological soundness
-
Clarity and organization of presentation
-
Appropriateness and accuracy of references
Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:
-
Accept
-
Minor Revision
-
Major Revision
-
Reject
5. Revision Process
Authors are required to address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers.
Minor revisions are assessed by the editorial team, while major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
6. Final Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers’ recommendations and the authors’ responses. Possible outcomes include acceptance, rejection, or a request for further revision.
7. Review Timeline
The average peer review process takes approximately 12–16 weeks, depending on the number of revision rounds required.
8. Post-Acceptance
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and final proofreading prior to publication.
9. Reviewer Recognition
The journal recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers through acknowledgments or certificates upon request, while maintaining reviewer confidentiality.
