PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to GREAT: Global Research in Economics and Advanced Theory are initially assessed by the editorial team for relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, originality, and adherence to publication ethics. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or fail to meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected before external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

GREAT applies a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process. Research articles considered suitable for review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript objectively and provide constructive recommendations regarding its originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, and relevance to the journal's scope. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, a manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor revision, returned for major revision, or rejected. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further assessment when necessary.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal's editorial standards. Acceptance is not guaranteed by the submission of a manuscript or by the payment of any publication fee.

Confidentiality and Review Integrity

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated confidentially throughout the review process. Editors and reviewers must handle submissions fairly and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

GREAT seeks to ensure that all editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, and research integrity.

Review Time

The review process may take up to four months from the date of submission, depending on reviewer availability, the need for revisions, and the time required for editorial assessment. This is an estimated timeframe rather than a guarantee of a final decision within four months.