In general the main goal of the peer review process of The Economic Alternatives is to introduce a mechanism of quality control for the published papers.

BASIC STAGES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

of Economic Alternatives:

A.    Initial screening of the paper by the editor. The goal of the editor is to check the following: whether the journal is appropriate for the paper submitted; whether the manuscript followed the Author`s Guidelines of The Economic Alternatives journal; whether the paper be of interest for the readership, and other issues. There is an option that some manuscripts may be rejected before the peer review process.

B.     Peer review of the manuscripts. After the initial screening the paper is sent for peer review. The Economic Alternatives strictly adheres to double-blind review process, which means that names of the reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. Each paper is reviewed by at least two reviewers who experts in the respective field. The reviewers are asked by the editor to evaluate the paper and to give some feedback to the author/s, as well as advice to the editor as to whether the paper should be published in The Economic Alternatives. Typically the journal asks reviewers to complete their reports within the space of five or six weeks, though the editors do not have a mechanism to impose a deadline. If the reviewers are unanimous that the paper is not appropriate for the journal then the paper is rejected.

C. The reviews are sent to the authors for revision. On the basis of reviewers' recommendations, the author should revise the paper and resubmit it with a report on the main changes. The editor may send the paper back to the reviewers for additional evaluation. The author may choose not to accept some of the recommendations, and in this case they should substantiate their view in the report, explaining why the recommendations are not appropriate for the paper in question.

D. Final decision. The Editorial Board decides whether to publish or reject the paper on the basis of the reviews, and the author’s revisions and reports.

E.       The author is informed of decision.