Journal of Financial Ecosystems — Financial ecosystems.
Review model
Research, conceptual/theoretical and review articles undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Authors and reviewers are not normally told one another’s identities; editors know the parties’ identities. Preprints and recognisable topics may prevent complete anonymity. Reviews are confidential and are not routinely published or signed for authors. Clearly labelled editorial notices, corrections and similar non-research material receive editorial assessment and must not be represented as externally peer-reviewed research.
Editorial and peer-review stages
- Technical screening: check scope, file completeness, research declarations and full author metadata. Reconcile the OJS contributor list with the Title Page, including its Author Contributions section before review; return incomplete submissions for correction.
- Editorial assessment: assess relevance, contribution, methodological suitability and integrity. Papers may be declined without external review with an explanation.
- Reviewer selection: invite at least two independent external specialists. Screen expertise and conflicts; author suggestions may inform selection but do not determine it. Exclude conflicted reviewers and verify contact details independently.
- Confidential review: provide only the anonymised manuscript and appropriate anonymised supporting material. Reviewers assess contribution, methods, evidence, interpretation, ethics and presentation. Editors must exclude Title Pages and identified contribution files from reviewer access.
- Decision and revision: the handling editor evaluates the reports and may request minor or major revision, decline the paper or recommend acceptance. Seek additional expert advice where needed; decisions are not a simple vote. Authors receive reasoned feedback and respond point by point.
- Final decision and production: the authorised journal editor retains final decision responsibility. Acceptance is followed by copyediting, author proofs and final metadata reconciliation before placement in a quarterly issue. Commercial staff and automated systems cannot make acceptance decisions.
Special issues and editorial conflicts
Special issues follow the same review and ethics requirements as regular issues and are clearly labelled. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility and approves guest editors’ expertise and conflicts. A guest editor’s own paper is handled independently; guest-editor-authored papers must not exceed 25% of the issue. Editorial-team submissions are handled by an unconflicted editor and independent reviewers, with the submitting editor excluded from decisions and confidential reports. Monitor endogeny so that articles with an editor, board member or reviewer as an author do not exceed 25% in either of the two latest issues.
Timing and appeals
The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed review duration. Authors will be informed of material delays. A reasoned appeal should identify a procedural error or substantive issue and provide evidence. Where practicable, an unconflicted editor who did not make the original decision will assess the appeal. Disagreement alone does not require reversal. Contact the editorial office at [email protected].
Reviewer responsibilities
Accept reviews only within your expertise and disclose conflicts promptly. Maintain confidentiality, provide specific and constructive reasoning, and avoid coercive citations. Do not use unpublished ideas or data for personal benefit. Do not upload submissions or reports to external AI services or use generative AI to create the assessment. Notify the editor of suspected misconduct privately rather than making accusations to authors.