Peer Review and Eitorial Process

The Journal of Sustainable Development Issues (JOSDI) applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer-review process.

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, clarity, and ethical integrity of the submitted manuscript.

The confidentiality requirements described in this policy apply to submitted and unpublished materials. They do not restrict lawful reuse of the final published article under its applicable Creative Commons license.

1. Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system.

All manuscripts must be written in English and submitted in Microsoft Word format using the .doc or .docx file type. PDF files are not accepted for initial submission.

To support double-blind peer review, authors should submit the following:

A. Separate Title Page

The title page should contain:

  • title of the manuscript;
  • full name of each author;
  • institutional affiliation of each author;
  • email address of each author;
  • ORCID ID, where available;
  • identification and contact details of the corresponding author;
  • abstract;
  • keywords;
  • JEL Classification codes, where applicable;
  • conflict-of-interest statement;
  • funding statement;
  • acknowledgements, where applicable.

B. Anonymised Main Manuscript

The main manuscript must not contain:

  • author names;
  • institutional affiliations;
  • email addresses;
  • acknowledgements identifying the authors;
  • self-identifying statements;
  • file properties or metadata revealing author identities.

The anonymised manuscript should include:

  • title;
  • abstract of 100–250 words;
  • 5–7 keywords;
  • 2–4 JEL Classification codes for economics, finance, management, and related papers;
  • main text;
  • references;
  • tables and figures, where applicable;
  • appendices, where applicable;
  • data availability statement, where applicable;
  • ethical approval information presented without unnecessarily identifying the authors.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the anonymised manuscript does not reveal their identities to reviewers.

Authors must ensure that they hold the necessary rights or permissions for any third-party figures, tables, photographs, datasets, or other protected content included in the submission.

2. Initial Administrative Check

Following submission, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript:

  • is complete;
  • is written in English;
  • has been submitted in .doc or .docx format;
  • contains a separate title page;
  • has been appropriately anonymised;
  • includes the required abstract, keywords, references, and supporting materials;
  • follows the journal’s formatting requirements;
  • includes relevant declarations where applicable;
  • falls within the journal’s general subject area.

Incomplete or non-compliant submissions may be returned to the authors before editorial assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or another authorised editor conducts an initial academic assessment.

The manuscript is evaluated for:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • originality;
  • potential theoretical, empirical, methodological, or policy contribution;
  • methodological appropriateness;
  • clarity and quality of presentation;
  • compliance with publication ethics;
  • similarity or inappropriate textual overlap;
  • compliance with the journal’s minimum scholarly standards.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review where it:

  • falls outside the journal’s scope;
  • lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
  • contains serious methodological weaknesses;
  • does not comply with ethical requirements;
  • contains plagiarism or excessive inappropriate textual overlap;
  • contains third-party material without the necessary permission or legal basis;
  • has serious language or presentation problems;
  • does not meet the journal’s minimum academic requirements.

A desk-rejection decision is made by an editor and does not require external reviewer reports.

4. Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism and similarity-detection software (Turnitin) before external peer review.

An overall similarity rate below 20% is normally expected. However, the similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision.

The editorial team evaluates:

  • the sources of matching text;
  • the concentration and nature of overlap;
  • whether material has been appropriately cited;
  • whether matches occur in references or standard expressions;
  • whether there is unattributed reuse of text, data, tables, figures, or ideas.

Manuscripts exceeding the expected similarity level may be returned for revision or rejected before peer review.

Material reused under CC BY 4.0 or another open license must still be appropriately attributed and must not be presented misleadingly as entirely new or original content.

5. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • academic expertise;
  • publication record;
  • knowledge of the manuscript’s subject and methodology;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide a timely and constructive review.

Reviewers should not:

  • be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
  • have recent close collaboration with the authors;
  • have personal, financial, professional, or academic conflicts of interest;
  • be directly involved in the research under evaluation.

The journal is not required to use reviewers suggested by the authors.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal applies double-blind peer review.

Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript with regard to:

  • originality;
  • relevance;
  • theoretical contribution;
  • methodological quality;
  • reliability of data and analysis;
  • validity of results and conclusions;
  • engagement with relevant literature;
  • clarity and organisation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • appropriate attribution and permissions;
  • suitability for publication in the journal.

Reviewers provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments for the authors.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, and presentation standards and may be accepted without substantive revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript has publication potential but requires limited changes that do not fundamentally alter the study’s methodology, analysis, or conclusions.

Minor revisions may include:

  • clarification of arguments;
  • correction of minor errors;
  • improvement of presentation;
  • addition of limited explanations or references;
  • responses to minor methodological or editorial concerns.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered.

Major revisions may include:

  • substantial methodological clarification;
  • additional analysis;
  • reconsideration of theoretical arguments;
  • restructuring of the manuscript;
  • revision of results or conclusions;
  • extensive responses to reviewer concerns.

A major-revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements regarding originality, quality, methodology, ethical compliance, relevance, or scholarly contribution.

A rejected manuscript may not be resubmitted as the same submission unless the editor explicitly invites the authors to prepare a substantially revised new submission.

8. Author Revision

Where revision is requested, authors must submit:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers and editor;
  • a clear explanation of all changes made;
  • an explanation of any reviewer recommendation that was not followed;
  • a highlighted or tracked version of the revised manuscript where requested.

Authors should address each reviewer comment carefully, respectfully, and substantively.

The revised manuscript must be submitted within the period specified in the editorial decision.

Failure to submit the revision within the requested period, without obtaining an extension, may result in the submission being treated as withdrawn and closed.

Authors may request an extension before the revision deadline where additional time is reasonably required.

9. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • evaluated directly by the responsible editor;
  • returned to the original reviewers;
  • sent to additional reviewers where further expertise is required.

The procedure depends on:

  • the extent of the requested revisions;
  • the authors’ responses;
  • the remaining methodological or ethical issues;
  • the need for further specialist evaluation.

The journal may request more than one round of revision where necessary.

10. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may:

  • evaluate the reasoning and evidence presented in each report;
  • request clarification from the reviewers;
  • appoint an additional independent reviewer;
  • seek advice from an Associate Editor or Editorial Board member without a conflict of interest.

Editorial decisions are not determined by a simple numerical majority of reviewer recommendations.

The editor considers the quality, relevance, consistency, and evidential basis of the reviewer reports.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised independent editor.

The decision is based on:

  • reviewer reports;
  • the authors’ responses;
  • revisions made to the manuscript;
  • the editor’s independent academic assessment;
  • compliance with the journal’s ethical and editorial policies.

The possible decisions are:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions except where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest. In such cases, the manuscript is handled and decided by an independent editor.

12. Expected Decision Period

The journal aims to provide a final editorial decision within approximately 60 days.

The actual duration may vary depending on:

  • reviewer availability;
  • the complexity and quality of the submitted manuscript;
  • the number of revision rounds;
  • the need for specialist or additional reviews;
  • delays in receiving author revisions;
  • ethical or methodological issues requiring further examination.

The 60-day period is an indicative target and does not constitute a guarantee.

13. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the Editorial Board follow the same peer-review and ethical standards as all other submissions.

Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor who:

  • has no conflict of interest with the authors;
  • independently selects the reviewers;
  • manages the peer-review process;
  • manages all correspondence and revisions;
  • makes the editorial decision.

The submitting editor or Editorial Board member:

  • does not select or recommend reviewers;
  • does not have access to confidential peer-review information;
  • does not participate in the evaluation of the manuscript;
  • does not participate in the editorial decision.

14. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, title pages, unpublished data, and supporting materials are confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Reviewer identities, reviewer reports, internal editorial correspondence, and editorial records remain confidential after the process has concluded, unless the journal operates an explicitly stated open peer-review procedure and the necessary permissions have been obtained.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • disclose information about a submission to unauthorised individuals;
  • share submitted manuscript files or extracts;
  • use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage;
  • upload confidential submission content to external AI systems or services that do not guarantee confidentiality.

Peer-review reports, reviewer identities, editorial correspondence, and internal editorial records are not automatically included in the CC BY 4.0 license applied to the published article.

They may be made public only where:

  • the journal operates an expressly stated open peer-review procedure;
  • all necessary consents have been obtained;
  • an appropriate license or rights statement has been applied.

The confidentiality of the submitted manuscript does not impose additional restrictions on the final Version of Record after it has been published under CC BY 4.0.

Users may share and adapt the published article in accordance with the applicable license, while reviewer identities and confidential editorial records remain protected.

15. Production and Proofreading

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process, which may include:

  • copyediting;
  • language and style checks;
  • reference verification;
  • formatting;
  • typesetting;
  • preparation of the final PDF and online version;
  • author proofreading.

The corresponding author receives the proof for final checking.

At the proof stage, authors should correct typographical, formatting, and minor factual errors.

Substantial changes to:

  • the methodology;
  • data;
  • analysis;
  • results;
  • conclusions;
  • authorship

require prior editorial approval.

Authors must also verify that third-party content is accompanied by appropriate permissions, acknowledgements, and rights statements before publication.

16. Publication, Copyright and License

Once the final proof has been approved, the article is published online on the journal’s website.

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication and the right to identify itself as the original publisher.

Articles published under the journal’s current policy are made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The license allows users to:

  • copy and redistribute the article;
  • translate, adapt, transform, and build upon it;
  • use the article for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

Users must:

  • give appropriate credit to the author or authors;
  • acknowledge the original journal publication;
  • identify and link to the applicable license where reasonably practicable;
  • indicate whether changes were made;
  • avoid implying endorsement by the authors or the journal.

No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed that prevent recipients from exercising the rights granted under the applicable CC BY 4.0 license.

The published article includes:

  • complete bibliographic information;
  • DOI;
  • publication date;
  • copyright information;
  • licensing information;
  • relevant rights statements for excluded third-party material where applicable.

The license stated on the individual article page is authoritative, particularly for legacy articles that may have been published under a different license.

17. Supplementary Materials and Research Data

Supplementary materials made available with an article are subject to the license or rights statement displayed for those materials.

Separately deposited datasets, software, code, instruments, and other research outputs do not automatically fall under the article’s CC BY 4.0 license.

Authors should clearly state:

  • where associated materials are located;
  • whether access is open or restricted;
  • the applicable license or terms of reuse;
  • any ethical, contractual, confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property restrictions.

18. Article Processing Charge and Editorial Independence

Accepted articles may be subject to the Article Processing Charge specified in the journal’s current APC Policy.

Any applicable amount, exemption, or waiver is governed by the APC Policy in force at the relevant time.

Article Processing Charges are considered only after editorial acceptance.

Payment, non-payment, waiver status, or eligibility for an exemption does not influence:

  • initial screening;
  • reviewer selection;
  • peer review;
  • revision requests;
  • acceptance or rejection decisions.

19. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

Post-publication corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

A correction or retraction does not automatically revoke a Creative Commons license already applied to the article.

Retracted articles remain accessible and are clearly identified as retracted to preserve the transparency and integrity of the scholarly record.

Users reusing a corrected or retracted article must not conceal or misrepresent its current publication status.

20. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  • a significant factual error affected the decision;
  • a material part of the manuscript was misunderstood;
  • a procedural error occurred;
  • an undisclosed conflict of interest influenced the review;
  • the journal’s stated procedures were not followed.

An appeal must:

  • be submitted in writing;
  • identify the manuscript;
  • explain the specific grounds for appeal;
  • provide a detailed academic or procedural justification;
  • address the relevant reviewer and editor comments.

An appeal must not be based solely on disagreement with the editorial outcome.

Where possible, the appeal is reviewed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

The outcome of the appeal is final.