Peer Review Process

The EuroMid Journal of Business and Tech-Innovation (EJBTI) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. Manuscripts are assessed based on originality, clarity, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope.

The final decision on whether a submission is accepted for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief. This is applicable to all submissions, including those for special issues.

How peer review works

 

 

1. Once the author submits a manuscript for review, it will be prescreened by the Editorial Office. The staff will check whether it meets our technical requirements for submission. The Peer-Review Support Specialist will check whether it is in accordance with the journal's aims and scope.

2. Following completion of the prescreen by the Editorial Office, the manuscript will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief. A comprehensive evaluation will ensue, considering alignment with the journal's aims and scope, methodological rigor, and overall article readability. The Editor-in-Chief may make an immediate decision on the paper at this stage.

3. Subsequently, the Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor or Guest Editor (for submissions to Special Issues) based on the research fields encapsulated.

4. Upon receiving the manuscript from the Editor-in-Chief, the Associate Editor or Guest Editor will assess the manuscript for its suitability for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief may make an immediate decision to reject based on the Associate Editor or Guest Editor’s recommendation at this stage.

5. The appointed Associate Editor or Guest Editor will then meticulously invite at least two anonymous reviewers, all of whom are external experts, to evaluate the manuscript. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process, ensuring objectivity, impartiality, and academic rigor.

6. The Associate Editor or Guest Editor will make a recommendation after receiving reports from at least two reviewers. If the reviews differ widely, the Associate Editor or Guest Editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a recommendation.

7. Subsequently, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision based on the received recommendation and his/her own assessment of the manuscript, indicating approval for rejection, acceptance, minor revision, or major revision.

8. If the article is rejected or sent back for either a major or minor revision, the corresponding author(s) will receive the reviewers' comments. A final check by the Editor-in-Chief is a must before sending acceptance to any revised paper. Once your paper has been accepted, it will be checked by the editorial office to ensure that it is ready for production. If any updates are necessary, you may be contacted. Otherwise, your paper will be forwarded to the production team.

9. When the production team receives the accepted article, the corresponding author will be contacted by email to ask them to sign a publication license.

10. The corresponding author will receive an email for approval before it is typeset. Authors should check their proofs carefully to confirm all the information is accurate. Proofs must be returned within 7 working days of receiving the email.

Special Issues Policy

EJBTI may publish special issues on topics within its aims and scope. They follow the same editorial standards as regular issues:

  • Proposal and approval. Special issues are proposed to the Editor-in-Chief, who approves them only if the topic is within the journal’s scope.
  • Guest Editor vetting. The Editor-in-Chief checks Guest Editors’ academic credentials, publication record and affiliations before approval. Guest Editors must declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Oversight. The Editor-in-Chief, or a designated Associate Editor, oversees each special issue throughout. Guest Editors cannot make final decisions; the Editor-in-Chief does.
  • Same peer review. Special-issue manuscripts go through the same double-blind review by at least two independent external reviewers.
  • Guest Editors’ own papers. A Guest Editor’s own manuscript is handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor with no conflict of interest. The Guest Editor has no access to its review. Papers authored by Guest Editors make up no more than 25% of the articles in a special issue.
  • Labelling. Special issues and their Guest Editors are clearly identified on the journal website and on each article published in them.

Plagiarism Detection

All manuscripts are screened for originality with iThenticate before peer review, and may be screened again after revision and before publication. iThenticate compares each manuscript against published scholarly literature, web content and other sources in its database.

Editors review each similarity report in context. They consider the nature, source, extent and attribution of any overlapping text rather than relying on a single similarity percentage. Properly quoted and cited material, standard methodological wording and reference lists are not treated as plagiarism.

Where plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication or other misconduct is suspected, the journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and its Publishing Ethics policy. Possible outcomes include rejection, a correction, or retraction.