Economic Diplomacy

Guidelines for Reviewers

Editors of the journal Economic Diplomacy are responsible for monitoring and ensuring the fairness, timeliness, thoroughness, and civility of the peer-review editorial process.

Submitted papers firstly are reviewed by the journal editors.

Research Articles and Review Articles that proceed to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under the journal's double-anonymous peer review model.

The author will receive assessments of the referees in an electronic form sent to the e-mail address that has been provided for the purposes of communication with the journal’s editors.

In case the referee(s) recommend the paper for publishing in the journal Economic Diplomacy with no revisions required, the submitted manuscript is considered to be “accepted”. In case at least one or both referees provide recommendations for improvements, the author is asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript. Revised version of the paper is sent by author(s) to editors. Editors evaluate the necessity of additional reviewing. Editors may accept or reject the revised papers with no additional external review. In case all referee(s) reject the paper, it is returned to the author with no options to resubmit.

The submitted manuscripts have been evaluated by the external referee(s) according to the following criteria:

• Originality of the paper, whether it contributes to the existing knowledge about economic diplomacy and related fields
• Relevance of the paper title to the paper content
• Scientific importance of the topic
• Structure of the paper, its logic
• Relevance of the abstract and its structure
• Clear statement of research objectives
• Appropriateness of the applied research methods
• Description of the research results
• Validity of the conclusions
• English style is clear and understandable
• Adequacy of the references to the content of the paper
• Of practical value

Reviewers are asked to make a final decision regarding a paper, choosing from the alternatives:

• Accept without revisions
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions (additional review is required)
• Reject

In case of any decision except of “accept without revisions”, reviewers should provide clear explanation of the reasons for the decision and recommendations for improvements.

Last updated: July 2026