Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Contemporary Business and Economics Studies (JCBES) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, transparency, and scholarly excellence through rigorous double-blind peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The journal operates a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure absolute objectivity, fairness, and impartiality. Under this policy, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout all stages of the review process.

Core Principle: Every research manuscript is evaluated independently by at least two (02) external, independent expert reviewers specializing in the subject matter.

Peer Review Process and Sequential Stages

All submitted manuscripts undergo a sequential, rigorous evaluation process as follows:

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission via the ASJP platform, the manuscript undergoes an initial preliminary assessment by the Editorial Board to verify:

  • Alignment with the journal's Aims & Scope.
  • Originality and absence of uncredited content via automated similarity check (DETECTIA software).
  • Strict adherence to formatting, structural, and citation requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

* Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic standards are subject to immediate Desk Rejection without external review.

Stage 2: Selection and Assignment of Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts passing initial screening are anonymized (all author names, affiliations, and self-identifying references removed) and converted to PDF. The Editor assigns the paper to at least two (02) independent expert reviewers who have no institutional or personal conflicts of interest with the authors. Reviewers must formally declare freedom from any competing interests before receiving the manuscript.

Stage 3: Review Timeline & Recommendations

Reviewers are allocated four (04) weeks to complete a comprehensive scientific evaluation focusing on originality, theoretical soundness, methodological rigor, and citation currency. Each reviewer renders one of the following recommendations:

✓ Accept As Is
📝 Minor Revisions
✏ Major Revisions
✕ Reject

Stage 4: Final Editorial Decision & Adjudication

The Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board makes the final decision based on the combined reports. In the event of conflicting evaluations (e.g., one accept and one reject), the manuscript is referred to a third independent reviewer (adjudicator) to resolve the decision. Authors receive written notification of the decision accompanied by detailed, anonymized feedback.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions against five essential scholarly dimensions:

  • 1. Originality and Scholarly Contribution Novelty of research questions, significant theoretical or empirical contributions to contemporary business, finance, or economic disciplines.
  • 2. Methodology and Analytical Tools Soundness, appropriateness, and reproducibility of the research design, econometric modeling, sample selection, and fieldwork techniques.
  • 3. Literature Review and Referencing Comprehensiveness, relevance, and currency of cited academic literature, adhering accurately to APA citation standards.
  • 4. Results and Discussion Logical coherence of interpretations, analytical depth of empirical findings, and alignment with the presented data.
  • 5. Language, Clarity, and Structure Clarity of expression, logical organization, scholarly terminology, and absence of grammatical errors.

Plagiarism and Similarity Check Policy (DETECTIA)

To preserve academic integrity and uphold international publishing ethics, the Journal of Contemporary Business and Economic Studies employs the DETECTIA plagiarism detection system, which is directly integrated into the Algerian Scientific Journals Platform (ASJP).

Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors Regarding DETECTIA Reports:

  1. Automated Pre-Screening: Prior to being assigned to reviewers, every submitted manuscript undergoes an automated similarity check via the DETECTIA system upon submission to the ASJP platform.
  2. Similarity Index Evaluation: Reviewers are provided with access to the generated similarity report (or key similarity parameters) alongside the double-blind manuscript.
  3. Qualitative Verification: Reviewers are kindly requested to evaluate the similarity report qualitatively, distinguishing between permissible similarities (such as standard methodologies, proper citations, and common technical terminology) and potential scientific misconduct (such as uncredited text copying, data duplication, or self-plagiarism).
  4. Reporting Concerns: If a reviewer identifies critical overlap or unacknowledged sources during the evaluation process, they should explicitly highlight these concerns in their evaluation report or notify the Editorial Board through the ASJP portal for further action in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Editorial Independence & Policy Against Editorial Endogeny

To ensure absolute objectivity, prevent institutional favoritism, and fulfill international DOAJ accreditation requirements, JCBES enforces strict operational protocols regarding manuscripts authored or co-authored by members of the Editorial Board, Guest Editors, or researchers affiliated with the host institution (University of Tiaret):

  • Equal Rigorous Review: Submissions authored by Editors or Editorial Board members undergo the exact same double-blind peer-review process as external submissions, without exception.
  • Strict Recusal and Isolation: Any board member who authors or co-authors a submission is completely recused and excluded from editorial discussions, reviewer selection, access to reviewer identities, and decision-making regarding that manuscript.
  • Independent Editorial Delegation: Handling of such submissions is delegated entirely to an independent Associate Editor or an External Guest Editor who has no institutional, collaborative, or personal ties with the authors.
  • Transparent Disclosure Statement: To ensure full transparency and accountability, published articles authored by board members display a prominent statement on the final PDF identifying the independent handling editor who supervised the review.
  • Strict Endogeny Limit (< 25%): In compliance with DOAJ standards, the proportion of articles authored or co-authored by members of the editorial team or internal affiliates shall never exceed 25% in any single published issue.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Scientific Writing Ethics

In alignment with modern scientific standards, the Journal of Contemporary Business and Economic Studies (JCBES) follows ethical guidelines regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative AI technologies to maintain research integrity and transparency:

  1. Authorship and Human Responsibility: Generative AI tools, Large Language Models (LLMs), or AI-assisted software cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, as they cannot hold legal accountability, grant copyright, or manage conflicts of interest. Authors bear 100% responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, originality, and validity of all content, data, literature reviews, and citations in the manuscript.
  2. Permitted Use and Mandatory Disclosure for Authors: The use of AI tools is strictly limited to language editing, improving readability, grammar checks, and translation support. AI must not be used to generate core scientific insights, formulate hypotheses, analyze research data, or fabricate citations. Authors must explicitly declare the use of generative AI tools in a dedicated "AI Usage Declaration" section prior to the references, specifying the tool name, version, and the exact scope of its application.
  3. Reviewers, Editors, and Confidentiality: Reviewers and editors are strictly forbidden from uploading submitted manuscripts, abstracts, or evaluation data into public or third-party AI tools to protect intellectual property and data privacy. Reviewers and editors must not use AI tools to write, draft, or summarize peer review reports or editorial decision letters. All evaluations must be produced solely through human expertise.
  4. Automated Screening, AI Detection, and Editorial Actions: The editorial office employs certified automated detection tools during the initial screening process to check for uncredited AI-generated text, synthetic data, or plagiarism. Any undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI tools (such as automated text generation or data fabrication) will result in an immediate formal desk rejection and potential handling under COPE misconduct guidelines.