Peer Review

All scientific manuscripts submitted to Ekonomski fokus undergo an initial editorial assessment and, if they meet the journal’s basic formal and substantive requirements, are sent for double-blind peer review.

In the double-blind peer review process, the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. This approach is intended to ensure impartial, independent, and professional evaluation of manuscripts based solely on their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Initial Editorial Assessment

After submission, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal, complies with the basic technical and ethical requirements, and demonstrates an appropriate level of scientific quality for peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected before peer review if it falls outside the scope of the journal, does not meet basic scientific or methodological standards, has not been prepared in accordance with the author guidelines, or raises serious concerns regarding research or publication ethics.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

When selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers their expertise, independence, and any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not participate in the evaluation process if circumstances exist that could affect their impartiality.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate, in particular:

• the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript
• the relevance of the research problem
• the adequacy of the theoretical framework
• the quality and transparency of the methodology
• the reliability of the results and their interpretation
• the consistency of the conclusions with the research findings
• the quality and relevance of the cited literature
• the clarity, structure, and readability of the manuscript
• compliance with ethical and scientific standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide a reasoned assessment and, where appropriate, specific recommendations for improving the manuscript.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without significant changes.

Accept with minor revisions – limited revisions are required that do not substantially alter the structure, methodology, or results of the manuscript.

Reconsider after major revisions – substantial content, methodological, or structural revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the same or to different reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, methodological, or substantive standards, or the identified deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editorial team may seek an additional review.

Revision of the Manuscript

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a clear response to the reviewers’ comments.

The response should indicate which recommendations have been accepted and how the manuscript has been revised. If an author chooses not to follow a particular recommendation, a reasoned explanation should be provided.

The editorial team may return the revised manuscript for further peer review if necessary.

Final Decision

The final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the editorial team, taking into account the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the revisions, the scientific contribution of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal’s editorial policies.

Positive recommendations from reviewers do not automatically guarantee publication.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, peer review reports, and communications related to the review process are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, or results contained in submitted manuscripts for their own purposes or disclose them to third parties.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the double-blind review process.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Issues

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review process.

If concerns arise during peer review or after publication regarding plagiarism, data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission, or other forms of publication misconduct, the editorial team will act in accordance with the journal’s policies and relevant international standards of responsible scholarly publishing.