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

BASIC STAGES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

of Economic Alternatives Journal:

A.    Initial screening of the paper by the editors. The goal of the editors is to check the following: whether the submitted manuscript is appropriate for the journal; whether the manuscript follows the Author`s Guidelines of The Economic Alternatives journal; whether the paper is of interest to the readership; and other issues. There is an option to reject some manuscripts 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 a double-blind review process, meaning that the names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. Each paper is reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the respective field. The editor asks the reviewers to evaluate the paper, provide feedback to the author (s), and advise the editor on whether the paper should be published in The Economic Alternatives. Typically, the journal asks reviewers to complete their reports within 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, it is rejected.

C. The reviews are sent to the authors for revision. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the author should revise the paper and resubmit it with a report detailing 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 that case 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, the author’s revisions, and reports.

E.       The author is informed of the final decision.