Peer Reviewer Process

All manuscripts submitted to Ephemeris Administrativa Commercialis (EAC) must be submitted through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS) and prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines and official manuscript template.

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editorial Office. This preliminary assessment evaluates the completeness of submission files and metadata, compliance with formatting requirements and journal policies, suitability with the journal’s focus and scope, originality through plagiarism screening, and adherence to publication ethics standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction prior to peer review or may be declined if they fall outside the scope of the journal.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening proceed to a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure objectivity, fairness, confidentiality, and an unbiased evaluation.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area of the submission. Where necessary, the Editor may invite additional reviewers to provide further specialist assessment.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution;
  • Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
  • Soundness of the theoretical framework and conceptual foundation;
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology and analytical approach;
  • Quality and interpretation of results and findings;
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing;
  • Adequacy and relevance of references and supporting literature;
  • Significance of the study for scholarship, professional practice, and future research.

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Reject

Authors receiving a revision decision are required to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not adopted, authors should provide a clear and reasoned justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for all publication decisions and may accept or reject a manuscript based on reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, and compliance with the journal’s publication standards and ethical policies.

Throughout the review process, the Editorial Board is committed to maintaining fairness, confidentiality, transparency, academic integrity, and timely communication. Authors may track the progress of their submissions through the OJS platform and may contact the Editorial Office for clarification regarding the status of their manuscripts when necessary.