Peer Review Process

The Journal of Economic Development and Village Building (JEDVB) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted for publication is subject to peer review to determine its suitability for publication and to maintain the quality and credibility of the journal. Under the double-blind system, neither the authors nor the reviewers know one another's identity throughout the process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers of competence relevant to the subject of the paper, and the review is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The process proceeds through the following steps.

1. Submission. The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system (OJS). Submissions are accepted only through this system; manuscripts sent by email are not processed.

2. Editorial office assessment. The editor first checks the manuscript for fit with the journal's focus and scope and for compliance with the Author Guidelines, including the required structure and formatting, and screens for any major methodological flaw. Every manuscript that passes this stage is checked with Turnitin for similarity before being sent for review.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and sufficiently original, significant, and sound to merit review. Manuscripts that do not meet this threshold are rejected at this stage without further review (desk rejection).

4. Invitation to reviewers. The handling editor invites reviewers selected for their expertise, closeness of research interest, and absence of any conflict of interest. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers with all author-identifying information removed to preserve the double-blind process.

5. Response to invitations. Invited reviewers consider the manuscript against their expertise, availability, and any conflict of interest, and accept or decline. Reviewers who decline are encouraged to suggest suitable alternative reviewers.

6. Review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and prepare a detailed, constructive, point-by-point assessment against the journal's review criteria, originality and significance; fit with focus and scope; soundness of method; clarity and support of results and discussion; adequacy of the conclusion; quality of references; and ethical compliance. Each reviewer submits comments to the author and, separately, confidential comments to the editor, together with a recommendation.

7. Evaluation of the reviews. The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all returned reviews together. Where the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor invites an additional reviewer to provide a further opinion before a decision is reached.

8. Decision. The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author, together with the reviewers' anonymized comments. The decision is one of the following:

  • Accept Submission: publishable as is or with negligible changes;
  • Minor Revisions: publishable after limited, specific corrections;
  • Major Revisions (Resubmit for Review): substantial revision and a further round of review are required;
  • Reject: not suitable for publication in the journal.

9. Revision and final decision. Authors return their revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Manuscripts requiring major revision are normally returned to the reviewers; minor revisions may be verified by the handling editor. Leveraging the outcome of peer review, the editor makes the final decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and are published open access as freely downloadable files.

Timeline

JEDVB aims to complete the review process and reach an initial decision within approximately four to eight weeks of submission, though timelines may vary with reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Editorial independence

All editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript as established through peer review, and are made independently of any Article Processing Charge or waiver. The payment or waiver of fees has no influence on the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for every publication decision.