ISSN: 2522-266X
ERBF employs a double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts.
Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identity during the review process. This approach ensures objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of submitted work.
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This desk review assesses whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, meets the formatting requirements, and is of sufficient quality to proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected within 7 days. Authors are notified of the outcome of the desk review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected from the journal's pool of academic experts and are chosen based on their qualifications and absence of conflicts of interest with the submitted work.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following criteria: originality and contribution to the literature, soundness of methodology, clarity of presentation and writing quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and adequacy of the literature review and references. Reviewers assign scores on a scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion and provide detailed written comments to help authors improve their work.
Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following decisions: Accept (the manuscript is suitable for publication without changes), Minor Revision (the manuscript requires minor corrections before acceptance), Major Revision (the manuscript requires substantial changes and will be subject to a further round of review), or Reject (the manuscript is not suitable for publication in ERBF).
The final decision on each manuscript rests with the editorial team, informed by the reviewers' recommendations. The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author along with the reviewers' comments. The editorial team aims to reach a first decision within approximately two months of submission.
Authors of manuscripts requiring revision are asked to submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment. For minor revisions, the editorial team may make a final decision without sending the manuscript back to reviewers. For major revisions, the revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Authors are expected to submit minor revisions within 30 days and major revisions within 60 days.
All manuscripts are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share the content of submitted manuscripts with anyone outside the review process. Reviewers must not retain copies of the manuscript after the review is complete.
Desk review and initial screening: approximately 7 days. Double-blind peer review: 4 to 6 weeks. Editorial decision: approximately 7 days after reviews are received. Revision period: 30 days (minor) or 60 days (major). Final acceptance to publication: 2 to 3 weeks.