Review Process

All research papers submitted to the Central European Business Review are peer-reviewed according to the following procedure:

Initial review: The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor (responsible editors) evaluate each manuscript to determine if it fulfils the criteria and checks the submission for plagiarism using the iThenticate software. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial review are treated as declined submissions.

The responsible editor checks the quality of the article according to the following criteria:
- the theme and the character of the contribution corresponding to the criteria defined by the CEBR journal;
- the formal treatment of the contribution following the Information for authors, including the prescribed formatting for a scientific article;
- citations and list of the used literature arranged properly and according to the existing standards.

The editor has the right to reject contributions that are not in accordance with the journal’s editorial purpose and do not meet the above criteria and informs the author about this matter via e-mail.

Based on the editor’s initial review, the contribution proceeds to the peer-review process through the academic editor. In the peer-review process, a minimum of two independent reviewers (both of them are from a different institution than the author’s) evaluate the quality of an article submitted and make a proposal regarding the further procedure.

Peer review: Manuscripts that pass the initial review are assigned to two independent reviewers according to their expertise in the particular field through Academic Editor (selected from Associate Editors or members of the Editorial Board). All reviewers are PhD holders in the relevant academic discipline or have a significant, long-term professional and teaching experience. The review process is double-blind - the reviewers don't know the identity of the author, and the author doesn't know the identity of the reviewers.

The evaluation is primarily aimed at meeting the following criteria:
1. Is the goal of the paper clearly stated?
2. Does the paper have a strategic focus?
3. Is the paper relevant to Central Europe readers?
4. Does the paper have comprehensive and significant implications for business practitioners?
5. Is the paper strong in methodology? Are the methods adequate? Are they used in the appropriate way?
6. Is the paper based on existing theory? Is it supported by complex and up-to-date theoretical background?
7. Is the title of the paper appropriate?
8. Does the abstract include goal(s) of the paper, method(s) used and results?
9. Is the text readable? Is it well-organized?
10. Are there any formal mistakes in the paper?
11. Does the paper meet formal guidelines of CEBR?

If the reviews differ widely, the Editor invites an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

Decision: The Academic Editor recommends to the Editor-in-Chief the acceptance / revision / rejection of the manuscript based on referee report received from independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision on the acceptability of the research paper and notifies the authors, along with the comments of the reviewers and academic editor. The decision can be "Accept Submission", "Revisions Required", "Resubmit for Review", or "Decline Submission." If the decision is "Resubmit for Review", the manuscript has to be revised and sent to the second round of peer review.

If the paper was sent back to authors for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editor-in-Chief notifies authors about the result of the peer review process by e-mail and has the right to comment on the review reports. If the author makes a protest about the review reports, the Editor-in-Chief and responsible editor check the author´s objections within 30 days and they inform the author about the result.