Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Digital Economic Studies undergo a rigorous selection and evaluation process administered by the Editorial Board to ensure compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, thematic focus, and scholarly scope, while upholding the highest standards of academic quality. All submissions are evaluated through a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept strictly confidential.

Desk Review

During the desk review stage, manuscripts are examined for conformity with the journal’s submission guidelines, relevance to its aims and scope, and overall academic merit. If deficiencies are identified, authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the specified criteria. However, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject submissions outright should they fail to meet the journal’s fundamental requirements.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review are forwarded to two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the submission. The peer review process is typically completed within 2 to 3 weeks. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at the desk review stage do not proceed to external peer review.

Reviewers’ Decisions

Reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accepted: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable for publication pending the resolution of minor issues identified by the reviewers.

• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revision, including methodological refinement, theoretical strengthening, or significant restructuring of sections.

• Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to fundamental shortcomings, as detailed in the reviewers’ reports.

The Editorial Board considers the reviewers’ recommendations in determining the subsequent status of the manuscript.

Revision Stage

When minor or major revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author along with consolidated reviewer comments. Authors are given three weeks to complete major revisions and one week to complete minor revisions. Upon resubmission, authors must include a completed reviewer response form clearly outlining how each comment has been addressed.

Final Decision

At this stage, the Editorial Board reassesses the revised manuscript to confirm that the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. Notwithstanding prior provisional acceptance, the manuscript may still be rejected if the revisions are deemed insufficient or inadequately executed.

Proofreading

Once a manuscript is formally accepted, it undergoes a thorough proofreading process to ensure linguistic accuracy, stylistic consistency, and overall clarity.

Publication Confirmation

In the final stage, the formatted proof of the manuscript is returned to the author for final verification. Authors may correct typographical errors at this stage but may not introduce substantive changes. Upon author approval, the Editorial Secretariat proceeds with publication through the journal’s online platform and, where applicable, its print edition.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (n.d.). Guidelines on peer review. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guidelines/peer-review-guidelines