Peer Review Policy

Economics and Business Solutions Journal (EBSJ) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure that published manuscripts meet appropriate standards of originality, academic quality, relevance, and scholarly contribution to legal studies. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed for compliance with the journal's aims and scope, submission guidelines, and basic quality criteria. An initial similarity check may also be conducted to identify potential plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published work.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts considered suitable will proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable submissions are generally evaluated by two or more independent experts with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Reviewers assess the following aspects:

• Originality and novelty;
• Relevance to the aims and scope of EBSJ;
• Scientific soundness, logical coherence, and analytical rigor;
• Clarity, organization, and presentation;
• Appropriateness of research methods and supporting arguments;
• Contribution to legal scholarship and practice; and
• Potential duplication of previously published work.

Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments. Editorial decisions are based on the review reports and, where necessary, consultation with the Editorial Board.

3. Editorial Decisions

Authors must address reviewers' comments carefully and submit revisions within the period specified by the editorial team. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

4. Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over final publication decisions. Decisions are made independently, considering the reviewers' reports, academic quality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with editorial policies.

5. Estimated Timeline for the Article Publication Process

The following timeline outlines the estimated duration of each stage. Actual processing times may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, author response times, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

No.	Stage	Estimated Duration
1	Initial Editorial Assessment Assessment of scope, submission compliance, and basic quality.	Depends on editorial workload
2	Author Revision Following Initial Assessment Preliminary corrections, if requested.	Approximately 1 week
3	Double-Blind Peer Review Independent assessment of originality, relevance, quality, and contribution.	Target: 2 months May take up to 4 months
4	Revision Following Review Revisions in response to reviewers' and editor's comments.	Approximately 2 weeks
5	Evaluation of Revised Manuscript Editorial assessment and further reviewer input, if necessary.	Approximately 2 weeks
6	Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading Editorial and production preparation.	Approximately 2 weeks
7	Author Confirmation Author checks and confirms the final proofs.	Approximately 1 week
8	Finalization and Publication Final production and publication according to the journal schedule.	Approximately 1 week

6. Review Period and Publication Disclaimer

All durations are estimates and are not guaranteed deadlines. The total time from submission to publication may exceed the estimated period, particularly when major revisions, additional review rounds, or other editorial requirements are necessary.