Decision-Making Process

International Review of Sustainable Economics and Finance

Editorial Decision-Making Process – IRSEF

At IRSEF, we follow a rigorous, transparent, and ethically governed editorial decision-making framework to ensure the publication of high-quality, peer-reviewed research in economics, finance, and sustainable development.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Check
All submitted manuscripts are reviewed to confirm that:

  • Formatting guidelines (title, abstract, keywords, references, tables, and figures) are strictly followed

  • Required author declarations (authorship contributions, conflict of interest, ethical approvals, funding disclosure) are provided

  • Plagiarism checks are cleared using Turnitin or equivalent software (submissions exceeding 15% similarity may be returned or rejected)

Scope and Relevance Review
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor ensures that manuscripts:

  • Fall within IRSEF’s disciplinary scope

  • Contribute original insights to sustainable economics, finance, or policy research

Manuscripts outside the scope may be desk-rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts passing initial checks are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant domain expertise. IRSEF uses double-blind review to maintain impartiality.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Theoretical grounding and relevance to global economic and financial discourse

  • Research design, methodology, and data analysis

  • Ethical compliance and citation practices

  • Clarity, coherence, and logical presentation

Reviewer Recommendations

  • ✅ Accept as is

  • ✏️ Minor revisions required

  • ???? Major revisions required

  • ❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Review Consolidation
Handling editors consolidate reviewer feedback. In cases of disagreement or inconclusive reviews, a third reviewer or editorial board consultation may be initiated.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief issues the decision, which may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

All decisions are formally communicated to the corresponding author along with anonymized reviewer feedback.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions: 2–3 weeks for corrections, reviewed by the handling editor.
Major Revisions: 4–6 weeks; may require a second round of peer review.
Rejection and Resubmission: Generally, rejected manuscripts are not reconsidered unless significant revisions indicate potential for resubmission at editorial discretion.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification: Authors receive the final decision, reviewer comments, and instructions for compliance or formatting if accepted.
Appeals Process: Formal appeals must include detailed justification. Decisions by the Editor-in-Chief or independent panel are final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

  • Final Submission Package: Includes final manuscript, author bios, high-resolution figures, and signed copyright/licensing agreements.

  • Copyediting and Proofs: Professional editing ensures clarity, consistency, and formatting; authors review proofs before publication.

  • Online Publication: Articles are published open access under CC BY-NC 4.0, ensuring free non-commercial distribution with proper attribution.

7. Ethical Oversight

  • Conflict of Interest: Disclosure by authors, reviewers, and editors is mandatory.

  • Research Ethics Compliance: Documented ethical approvals and informed consent are required for human or animal research.

  • Data Integrity: IRSEF promotes honest, verifiable scholarship. Any manipulation or fabrication may result in correction, retraction, or institutional notification.