Peer Review

In the reviewing process, there are at least two reviewers for each manuscript for the related topic. Judgement from the first reviewer will be the main priority on which the editor will make their decision, if there are only two reviewers. Two weeks will be needed for a reviewer to complete one round of the reviewing process. The revision from the author shall include former comments from the reviewer and the author shall notice that the manuscript has been revised.

Generally, the candidate of the reviewers will be chosen based on their reputation in the international publication number and the study quality. For the next step, the editor sends an invitation letter to each candidate of the reviewer. After the candidate of the reviewer has been informed of their availability for the reviewing process, the editor can create an account for each reviewer and then send manuscript by OJS.

All of the reviewing process is done by way of a double-blind review and is managed by the editor in OJS.

Rules for Reviewers

In order to meet the requirements of scientific accuracy and ensure the continuity of publishing, we kindly ask you to:

  • make sure that a paper you have been asked to review is consistent with your field of interest and matches your expertise - do not hesitate to inform us that you feel unqualified to conduct a review;
  • meet the requirements of a double-blind review;
  • confirm there are no conflicts of interest;
  • meet deadlines and make sure you have enough time to review a paper - in general you have four weeks to conduct a review;and
  • let us know - within one or two days - if you are able or not to complete a review.

Double-blind review

Papers are reviewed by two (or more) independent and anonymous reviewers. The identities of the author and referees are concealed.

Conflict of interest

To avoid a possible conflict of interest, a reviewer is not allowed to:

  • work in the same organization as the Author(s) of a manuscript, e.g. university, research institute, etc.;
  • have previously collaborated with the Author(s) on a manuscript;
  • have any professional, personal or financial relationship with the Author(s).

If a reviewer is aware of any potential conflict of interest, they should inform the editor who has invited them to conduct a review. 

Evaluation criteria

All submitted papers ought to be assessed in the following aspects:

  • originality;
  • structure and organisation;
  • reliability and accuracy of theoretical issues;
  • methodological rigor of presented research;
  • relevance, reliability and accuracy of empirical findings;
  • contribution of the research findings to knowledge and business practice;
  • quality of writing and language (e.g. punctuation errors, misspellings, spelling mistakes, colloquial language should be avoided);
  • quality and legitimacy validity of tables and figures.

During the review process, we kindly ask you to:

  • conduct your review objectively;
  • be critical, but justify your criticism;
  • try to be helpful to the author and provide comments and suggestions for the paper improvement;
  • be careful not to reveal your identity in the comments;
  • give us clear recommendations.

Required paper structure

Papers submitted to the JEM should be divided into logical parts labeled as headlines including:

  • Title;
  • Abstract (Aim/Purpose, Design/methodology/approach,  Findings,  Research implications/limitations, Originality/value/contribution);
  • Keywords;
  • JEL Classification;
  • Main body (Introduction, Theoretical background, Research methods and procedure, Research findings and discussion, Conclusion);
  • Acknowledgements;
  • References in APA style. 

Reviewer's checklist

Please consider the following points during the review process:

  • Does the paper match the standards and scope of JES?
  • Does the outline of the paper adjust to the JES's requirements?
  • Is the paper innovative and original?
  • Are the research questions/hypotheses clear and theoretically grounded?
  • Are the research design, methodology and methods appropriate to the questions/hypotheses?
  • Does the paper contribute to the existing knowledge?
  • Does the paper expand and develop the existing theory and concepts?
  • Are the methods described clearly, allowing other researchers to replicate research?
  • Are the methods appropriate for data analysis?
  • Does the conclusion include theoretical and practical contributions and specify limitations of presented research?
  • Does the conclusion indicate implications for researchers and practitioners?
  • Does the conclusion indicate directions for future work?


If you suspect plagiarism or self-plagiarism, please inform us immediately.


Please remember, papers received for reviews must be treated as confidential documents

Ethical standards

JES holds the best standards of publication ethics. It is important for us to ensure that authors and reviewers follow these standards / act in accordance with these standards (available Publication Ethics).