Review Process
RSEP Conferences is committed to supporting academic quality and maintaining a transparent evaluation process for submitted research. Manuscripts are assessed according to their academic merit, originality, relevance, and compliance with the conference's requirements.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening to determine whether it:
- Falls within the scope of the relevant conference.
- Meets the basic submission and formatting requirements.
- Provides a clear research objective and appropriate academic structure.
- Includes adequate citations and references.
- Raises any apparent concerns regarding originality or research integrity.
Submissions that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined before further review.
2. Academic Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated through the review procedure designated for the relevant conference.
Where applicable, a double-blind review process is used, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to the extent practicable.
Reviewers may assess submissions based on the following criteria:
- Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
- Relevance to Economics, Finance, Business, or related disciplines.
- Quality and clarity of the research question.
- Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and methodology.
- Reliability of the data and analytical procedures.
- Interpretation of results and validity of conclusions.
- Quality of academic writing and presentation.
- Relevance of the references and engagement with existing literature.
3. Review Outcomes
Following evaluation, one of the following outcomes may be recommended:
- Accepted: The submission meets the relevant academic and conference requirements.
- Accepted subject to revisions: The authors must address specified comments or make required corrections.
- Resubmission requested: Substantial revisions may be required before a further decision can be made, where the conference permits resubmission.
- Rejected: The submission does not meet the applicable academic or conference requirements.
The final decision is made by the authorised conference or editorial team, taking the review findings into consideration.
4. Revision and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors should address the reviewers' comments carefully and provide a revised manuscript within the stated deadline.
The conference may request a response explaining how the comments have been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further evaluation when necessary.
Failure to submit required revisions within the specified period may affect the acceptance or publication decision.
5. Review Timelines
Review timelines may vary depending on the volume of submissions, reviewer availability, the complexity of the research, and the conference schedule.
Any estimated review period communicated by the organisers should be understood as indicative rather than a guarantee of a decision by a specific date.
6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Impartiality
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, professionally, and confidentially.
They should disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
Unpublished manuscripts and review materials must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to unauthorised parties.
7. Editorial Independence
Review and acceptance decisions should be based on academic quality, relevance, and compliance with the applicable requirements.
Conference registration or payment of a participation fee must not be represented as a guarantee of academic acceptance or publication.
8. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe that a decision resulted from a procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a potential conflict of interest.
Appeals should be submitted in writing to the conference organisers and should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration.
Appeals will be considered in accordance with the conference's procedures. A request for reconsideration does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.