Review Guidelines

The submitted manuscripts are reviewed in a double-blind process.

The review process concludes with a decision: Accept as isRevision requiredResubmit for review, or Reject.

The reviewer should register in the system (declaring a reviewer role) and log in via the Internet website.

The journal is published quarterly and we are doing our best to print it on-time. It is required that the review process should not exceed 2 months.


Review report

Review reports should contain:

  1. Filled electronic review form (available in OJS system).
  2. A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.
  3. Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.
  4. Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures.

Reviewers must not recommend the citation of the work by themselves or close colleagues when it is not  clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.


Peer Review Process

We follow strict anti-plagiary procedure and we neither accept papers prepared by ghostwriters nor including guest authors. Such activities are perceived as transgressions and may be followed by criminal prosecution.

Editors of the journal have adopted the following procedures:

  1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are checked with the Crossref similarity anti-plagiarism software supported by iThenticate.
  2. Each author signs the statement which indicates that the paper presented for publication comprises his or her own and original work. Also, the source of financing of the research presented in the paper or the source of financing of the paper itself need to be indicated.
  3. In the case of two or more authors of one article, the Editors require the indication of the contribution of each of them to the publication (with stating the affiliation and each author’s contribution to the conception, assumptions, methods. etc.).
  4. The Editors assure that all discovered cases of scientific dishonesty will be exposed, including notifying the respective entities, in which the institution the person is affiliated with, the association of scientific editors.

The Editors declare to document all symptoms of scientific unreliability.


Information about the review process

After receiving an e-mail with an invitation to review a paper for the JGE journal, reviewers proceed to the Open Journal System, download the paper and complete the review. We kindly ask the reviewer to complete the review in no more than 3 weeks from the date of your accepting the invitation. Reviewers fill out the review form, providing us with:

  • the overall suggestion regarding the acceptance of the paper,
  • evaluation of the following aspects of the paper.


  1. Does the subject and nature of the article fit the journal profile?
  2. Does the title clearly reflect the subject matter of the article?
  3. Does the abstract and summary present the most important points?
  4. Are the chosen keywords appropriate?
  5. Is the length of the article appropriate?
  6.  Is the text layout clear and logical?
  7.  Are the figures and tables correctly captioned and annotated?


  1. Is the article original?
  2. Are the subject of the analysis and the applied research methods clearly described?
  3. Are the research results thoroughly interpreted?
  4. Are the interpretations and conclusions in line with the facts presented?
  5. Are all figures and tables correct and necessary?
  6. Are references properly cited?
  7. Are there any unnecessary references?

All papers submitted to our journal undergo a language correction (carried out by a native speaker) and if the need arises (e.g. on-demand of Reviewer or one of the Editors), also statistical correction. Then present a detailed review, including the justification for your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless the Editors decide not to do so.

If reviewers wish to add any remarks intended only for Editors, write them below. These remarks will only be seen by the Editorial Committee Members having access to reviews. They will not be sent to the authors. The remarks field is optional.

To ensure, that no conflict of interest arises, we carry out the reviews in double-blind mode.