Central European Economic Journal

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others
except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Review Form

In order to prepare the article in the best possible way, pay attention to the issues of your manuscript subject to the reviewers' assessment. The form (implemented in the ScholarOne system) of original research paper is presented below:
Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this paper (state “none” if this is not applicable):

1. Abstract: Is abstract structured in accordance with the requirements of the Journal?
2. Motivation and contribution: Does the paper contain new and significant information that improve or build on existing research? What is theoretical, empirical and/or practical contribution of the paper?
3. Literature: Does the paper present an adequate understanding of the relevant literature and refer to literature sources in the right way?
4. Methodology: Is the paper's idea built on an appropriate conceptual background? Is the research design and methods employed appropriate?
5. Findings: Are the results presented in a clear way, highlighting the novelty in the context of existing research?
6. Quality of Communication: Is the paper written in a clear way for readers and the used terminology is appropriate?
7. General Comments to the Author:
8. Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?
   Yes   No
9. *Recommendation
   Accept
   Minor Revision
   Major Revision
   Reject
10. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Acknowledgments to our reviewers

Any scientific journal cannot function properly, unless it is assisted by reviewers. The editors are aware of the fact that an adequate assessment of the academic excellence of manuscripts received calls for a much broader perspective than that they can provide themselves. Therefore, we gratefully acknowledge the support of our referees. It seems to us that these double-blind peer reviews are appreciated by the authors too, as they allow for improving their texts significantly.