Peer Review Process Policy

ALEXANDRIA (Journal of Economics, Business, & Entrepreneurship) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on originality, scientific contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team.

The screening considers:

  • Relevance to economics, business, management, entrepreneurship, and related disciplines.

  • Compliance with Author Guidelines.

  • Originality and scientific contribution.

  • Quality of academic writing.

  • Research methodology and ethical compliance.

  • Completeness of required manuscript information.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Originality Screening

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for originality using appropriate similarity detection tools.

Similarity reports are assessed carefully, considering the nature and context of textual overlap rather than relying solely on a numerical similarity percentage.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the research topic.

Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, research experience, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate:

  1. Originality and novelty of the research.

  2. Relevance and significance of the research problem.

  3. Adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework.

  4. Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.

  5. Reliability of data collection and statistical analysis.

  6. Quality of findings, interpretation, and discussion.

  7. Theoretical, managerial, economic, or entrepreneurial implications.

  8. Clarity of conclusions and acknowledgment of research limitations.

  9. Relevance and quality of references.

  10. Compliance with research and publication ethics.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Acceptance.

  • Minor revisions.

  • Major revisions.

  • Rejection.

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

6. Revision Process

Authors must address reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts within the period specified by the Editorial Office.

A detailed response to reviewer comments may be required.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation by the original reviewers or other qualified experts.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The responsible editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, journal policies, and ethical considerations.

8. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All participants in the peer-review process must maintain confidentiality and protect unpublished research information.

Editorial decisions must be free from inappropriate financial, institutional, personal, or commercial influence.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or individuals closely associated with the journal must be handled by independent editors without relevant conflicts of interest.

ALEXANDRIA is committed to maintaining professional, constructive, and objective peer review in accordance with recognized scholarly publishing standards.