Peer Review process

Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER), UK is committed to maintaining the highest international publishing standards. All journal articles and conference papers are subjected to a rigorous double-blind external peer review process, ensuring fairness, transparency, and scholarly quality.

Step 1: Initial editorial screening
Upon submission, each full paper (not abstracts only) is first screened by the Editor-in-Chief / Conference Chair or Editorial Committee to ensure that:

• The submission complies with author guidelines and formatting requirements.
• The topic aligns with the aims, scope, and thematic tracks of the journal or conference.
• The paper meets basic academic and ethical standards.

Papers that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors without external review.

Step 2: Double-Blind external peer review
Submissions that pass the initial screening are sent for double-blind peer review, in which:

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
• Each paper is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers.
• Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and are independent of the authors’ institutions.
• Where possible, reviewers are drawn from different institutions and different countries to ensure objectivity and international perspective.

Step 3: Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate each paper using internationally accepted academic criteria, including:

1. Originality and novelty of the research
2. Relevance to the scope, theme, and tracks of the journal or conference
3. Quality and rigor of the research methodology
4. Theoretical and practical contribution to the field
5. Quality of analysis and interpretation of results
6. Structure and organisation of the manuscript
7. Clarity of writing and academic presentation
8. Soundness of conclusions and implications
9. Ethical standards and academic integrity
10. Potential to stimulate scholarly discussion and debate

Step 4: Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide detailed written reports and make one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
• Reject

All reviewer comments and suggested revisions are communicated to the authors.

Step 5: Revision and Final Decision
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer feedback and submit a revised version along with a response to reviewers.

Final acceptance decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief / Conference Chair, in consultation with the Editorial or Review Committee, based on:

• Reviewer recommendations.
• The quality of revisions.
• Compliance with academic and ethical standards.

Step 6: Publication and Proceedings
Only papers that successfully complete the full peer-review process and meet all quality requirements are:

• Accepted for journal publication, or
• Included in the conference programme and official proceedings.