Quantitative Economics and Management Studies (QEMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research. Our peer review process is designed to evaluate the methodological rigor, statistical validity, and theoretical soundness of quantitative research in economics and management disciplines. We recognize that effective peer review is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge in our field and to maintaining the credibility of the scholarly record.

Peer Review Model

QEMS employs a double-blind peer review process where both authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual merit and methodological quality. All research articles, review papers, and case studies are subject to this peer review process, though editorials and invited commentaries may be reviewed at the discretion of the editorial team.

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted. Although rare, yet it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Each new submission is assessed by Editor using Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) to determine whether it falls within the general remit of QEMS. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the QEMS. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

The selection of appropriate reviewers is crucial to maintaining the integrity of our peer review process. Our approach to reviewer selection includes:

• Identifying reviewers with specific expertise in the quantitative methods and economic or management domains addressed in the manuscript
• Ensuring reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research content
• Maintaining a diverse reviewer pool representing various methodological traditions, institutional backgrounds, and geographic regions
• Matching technical aspects of manuscripts with reviewers possessing the appropriate statistical or mathematical expertise

Reviewers for QEMS are expected to:

1. Provide objective, constructive, and comprehensive evaluations of manuscripts
2. Assess the methodological soundness, statistical validity, and theoretical contribution
3. Evaluate the appropriateness of quantitative approaches for the research questions posed
4. Identify potential errors in mathematical formulations or statistical analyses
5. Suggest specific improvements for strengthening the research
6. Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks)
7. Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content
8. Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their evaluation

Two-Tier Review Structure

QEMS implements a distinctive two-tier review structure designed to ensure both technical soundness and substantive contribution:

First Tier: Methodological Assessment The initial review phase focuses on the technical aspects of the manuscript, including:

• Mathematical correctness of formal models and derivations
• Appropriateness of statistical methods and econometric specifications
• Validity of estimation techniques and hypothesis testing approaches
• Computational reproducibility of quantitative analyses
• Proper handling of data and transparency in reporting results

Second Tier: Substantive Evaluation Following methodological validation, the second phase assesses:

• Significance of the research question and contribution to knowledge
• Theoretical foundation and conceptual framework
• Interpretation of results and economic or managerial implications
• Positioning within relevant literature
• Clarity of presentation and accessibility to the intended audience

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following specific criteria:

1. Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness and execution of quantitative methods
2. Analytical Validity: Correctness of mathematical and statistical analyses
3. Data Quality: Appropriateness of data sources and handling procedures
4. Theoretical Grounding: Connection to economic or management theory
5. Originality: Contribution beyond existing literature
6. Significance: Importance of the research question and findings
7. Presentation: Clarity of writing, logical structure, and quality of visualizations
8. Ethical Considerations: Adherence to research ethics and disclosure standards

Review Process Timeline

QEMS is committed to providing timely feedback to authors while maintaining thorough review standards. Our typical review process follows these timelines:

• Initial screening: 1-2 weeks from submission
• First round of peer review: 3-6 weeks
• Editorial decision after review: 1-2 weeks
• Revised manuscript review: 2-4 weeks
• Final decision: 1-2 week after revised review completion

Authors can check the status of their submission through our online manuscript system at any time during this process.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, QEMS makes one of the following decisions:

1. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form.
2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes that can typically be completed within 2-4 weeks.
3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed, requiring significant reworking of analyses or interpretation.
4. Reject with Resubmission Encouragement: The current manuscript is not suitable for publication, but a substantially revised version addressing fundamental issues may be considered as a new submission.
5. Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in QEMS and resubmission is not encouraged.

All editorial decisions include detailed feedback to help authors understand the rationale behind the decision and, where applicable, guidance for improvement.

Revision and Resubmission Process

Authors of manuscripts requiring revision are provided with:

• Comprehensive reviewer comments
• Specific editorial guidance on prioritizing revisions
• A detailed cover letter template for documenting responses to each reviewer point
• Clear timeline expectations for resubmission

For revised manuscripts, authors must submit:

1. A clean version of the revised manuscript
2. A tracked-changes version highlighting modifications
3. A point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments
4. Updated supplementary materials if applicable

Appeals Process

QEMS maintains a structured appeals process for authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected due to misunderstandings or reviewer errors:

1. Authors must submit a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision
2. The appeal must present specific scientific or procedural grounds for reconsideration
3. An independent editorial board member not involved in the original decision will evaluate the appeal
4. If warranted, new reviewers may be assigned to provide fresh perspective
5. The final appeal decision is typically provided within 60 days of receipt

Reviewer Recognition and Development

QEMS values the essential contribution of reviewers to the scholarly ecosystem and implements several initiatives to recognize and develop reviewer expertise:

• Annual recognition of outstanding reviewers
• Periodic reviewer workshops and training opportunities
• Mentoring program pairing experienced and early-career reviewers
• Regular feedback to reviewers on the quality and helpfulness of their reviews
• Certificates of recognition for reviewers completing multiple high-quality reviews

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

QEMS expects all participants in the peer review process to adhere to high ethical standards:

1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts under review
2. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts before accepting assignments
3. Objectivity: Reviews must be based on scientific merit, not personal biases
4. Constructive Criticism: Feedback should be respectful and aimed at improving the work
5. Timeliness: Reviewers should complete reviews within agreed timeframes or communicate delays promptly
6. Intellectual Property: Ideas encountered during review must not be used for personal advantage

Continuous Improvement of the Peer Review Process

QEMS is committed to continuously enhancing its peer review process through:

• Regular evaluation of review quality and consistency
• Soliciting feedback from authors and reviewers about their experience
• Incorporating innovations in peer review best practices
• Periodic review of policies to ensure alignment with evolving standards in quantitative research
• Transparent reporting of key performance metrics related to the review process

This Statement of Peer Review Policies reflects QEMS's commitment to rigorous, fair, and constructive evaluation of quantitative research in economics and management. By maintaining these standards, we aim to publish research that advances theoretical understanding and practical applications in our field while ensuring methodological excellence.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not currently a reviewer for QEMS but would like to be added as the reviewers, please contact us. The benefits of reviewing for QEMS include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in the related research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for QEMS as part of your professional development requirements. QEMS's reviewers are volunteers who contribute their expertise to the science, thus no financial payments are made.

Contact

For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at qems[at]ahmar.id