Editorial Process

The editorial process is a crucial aspect of maintaining the quality and academic integrity of any publication. At Center for Energy and Economics Studies, we follow a systematic approach to evaluating and selecting manuscripts for publication. The process is designed to ensure that each manuscript undergoes thorough and fair assessment, involving initial screening, peer review, and final decision-making. Below is an overview of the steps involved in our editorial process:

  1. Initial Screening
  • Submission Review: Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial review to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the scope of the publication, follows the submission guidelines, and meets basic academic and ethical standards. This stage includes checking for formatting issues, adherence to submission guidelines, and potential ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, conflict of interest).
  • Suitability Check: We evaluate whether the manuscript is relevant to the field and if it presents a significant contribution to the area of research. If the manuscript does not meet these criteria, it is rejected at this stage.
  • Confirmation of Completeness: The editorial team ensures that the manuscript is complete and includes all necessary elements, such as the title page, abstract, keywords, and references.
  1. Peer Review Process
  • Reviewer Selection: After the initial screening, the editor selects appropriate peer reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter. We aim to assign at least two reviewers who can assess the quality, methodology, and validity of the research. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback, evaluating the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • Review Guidelines: The reviewers are given specific guidelines to help them assess the manuscript objectively. Key aspects of evaluation include:
    • Originality and significance of the research
    • Research design and methodology
    • Clarity of writing and logical structure
    • Accuracy and completeness of references and citations
    • Adherence to ethical standards
  • Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed comments, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation for decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). The editor reviews the feedback and considers each reviewer's comments carefully.
  • Editor’s Summary: The editor compiles a summary of the reviewers' feedback, highlighting key issues and recommendations. This summary is used to guide the decision-making process.
  1. Decision-Making
  • Assessment of Reviewer Feedback: Based on the feedback from the peer reviewers, the editor makes a decision about the manuscript. The possible outcomes include:
    • Accept: If the manuscript meets all academic and ethical standards and is free from major issues, it may be accepted for publication.
    • Minor Revision: If the manuscript requires minor changes (e.g., adjustments to structure, style, or clarity), it is returned to the author with feedback to address before resubmission.
    • Major Revision: If substantial revisions are required (e.g., re-analysis of data, rewriting sections of the manuscript), the manuscript is returned to the author for significant revision.
    • Reject: If the manuscript fails to meet academic standards or has substantial flaws that cannot be addressed through revision, it is rejected.
  • Communicating the Decision: The editor communicates the decision to the author, including a summary of the reviewers' feedback and any specific instructions or suggestions for revisions if applicable. In the case of a rejection, the editor provides a clear rationale.
  • Final Decision on Revisions: If revisions are requested, the editor evaluates the revised manuscript once it is resubmitted. If the revisions meet the reviewers' expectations and improve the manuscript, it may be accepted for publication. If not, further revisions may be requested or the manuscript may be rejected.
  1. Final Acceptance and Publication
  • Final Approval: Once the manuscript has been revised (if necessary) and all reviewer comments have been addressed, the editor makes a final decision to accept the manuscript for publication. At this stage, the manuscript undergoes the final proofreading and formatting process.
  • Publication: After the final approval, the manuscript is moved into production. The editorial team works with authors to finalize the manuscript for publication, ensuring it meets all publishing and formatting requirements.
  • Online and Print Publication: The manuscript is published in the appropriate format, either online or in print, and is made available to readers.
  1. Post-Publication Review
  • Ongoing Monitoring: After publication, the editorial team continues to monitor feedback from readers, reviewers, and other scholars. Any necessary corrections or updates to the published work are made in response to post-publication feedback.

By following this editorial process, we ensure that all published works meet the highest academic standards and contribute meaningfully to the field. Our commitment to thorough evaluation, fair peer review, and transparent decision-making helps us maintain the integrity of the publication and foster academic excellence.