Peer Review Policy

Overview

The International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM), published by the Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS), is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process.

IRFBM operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach promotes impartial evaluation, minimizes bias, and ensures that editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

The journal uses an online manuscript management system to facilitate the submission, review, editorial decision-making, and publication workflow.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to:

  • Evaluate the originality and significance of submitted research.

  • Assess methodological quality and scientific rigor.

  • Verify the accuracy and reliability of findings.

  • Improve the quality and clarity of manuscripts through constructive feedback.

  • Ensure compliance with ethical and publication standards.

  • Support the publication of high-quality research that advances knowledge in FinTech, business, management, finance, economics, and related disciplines.

Type of Peer Review

IRFBM follows a double-blind peer review model.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

  • Editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Confidentiality is maintained throughout the editorial and review process.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, the editorial office performs a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's scope.

  • Meets the journal's formatting and submission requirements.

  • Demonstrates sufficient academic quality.

  • Complies with ethical and publication policies.

  • Contains no obvious evidence of plagiarism or research misconduct.

Manuscripts failing to satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or declined without external review.

2. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript's:

  • Originality

  • Academic contribution

  • Research design

  • Relevance

  • Overall suitability for peer review

At this stage, manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may receive a desk rejection.

3. Reviewer Selection

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications.

  • Research expertise.

  • Publication record.

  • Previous reviewing experience.

  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial office may invite additional reviewers whenever necessary.

4. Independent Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and provide comments regarding:

  • Originality

  • Contribution to knowledge

  • Literature review

  • Theoretical foundation

  • Research methodology

  • Data quality

  • Statistical analysis

  • Interpretation of findings

  • Practical implications

  • Ethical compliance

  • Overall presentation

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based recommendations.

Possible recommendations include:

  • Accept without revision.

  • Accept subject to minor revisions.

  • Reconsider after major revisions.

  • Reject.

5. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor considers reviewer reports together with the journal's editorial standards before making a recommendation.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.

Authors receive:

  • The editorial decision.

  • Anonymous reviewer comments.

  • Required revisions, where applicable.

  • Instructions for resubmission.

6. Revision Stage

Authors are expected to:

  • Address every reviewer comment carefully.

  • Submit a revised manuscript.

  • Provide a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Where revisions are substantial, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers.

7. Final Decision

After satisfactory completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.

  • Accept with minor editorial corrections.

  • Request further revision.

  • Reject.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and publication.

Review Timeline

IRFBM aims to complete the peer review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining high academic standards.

Although review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the journal generally aims to provide an initial editorial decision within four to eight weeks after submission.

The journal cannot guarantee a fixed review period because the review process depends on independent expert reviewers.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by:

  • Authors' nationality.

  • Institutional affiliation.

  • Gender.

  • Ethnicity.

  • Religion.

  • Political beliefs.

  • Commercial interests.

  • Funding sources.

Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic merit, originality, scientific quality, and relevance to the journal.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

  • Use unpublished information for personal research or commercial purposes.

  • Disclose reviewer identities without permission.

  • Reveal confidential editorial discussions.

Confidentiality continues even after the review process has ended.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting responsibility for a manuscript.

Conflicts may arise from:

  • Personal relationships.

  • Institutional affiliations.

  • Financial interests.

  • Research collaborations.

  • Competitive academic relationships.

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest will not participate in the editorial or review process for the affected manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept reviews only within their area of expertise.

  • Provide objective, unbiased, and constructive evaluations.

  • Maintain confidentiality.

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

  • Identify relevant literature that has not been cited.

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.

  • Declare conflicts of interest promptly.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and provide recommendations supported by clear academic reasoning.

Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original and unpublished work.

  • Ensure that all listed authors have approved the submission.

  • Respond respectfully and comprehensively to reviewer comments.

  • Revise manuscripts within the requested timeframe.

  • Disclose conflicts of interest.

  • Report any significant errors identified after submission.

Failure to cooperate with the review process may result in rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

  • Selecting qualified reviewers.

  • Ensuring an impartial review process.

  • Protecting reviewer and author confidentiality.

  • Managing conflicts of interest.

  • Making fair editorial decisions.

  • Addressing ethical concerns.

  • Following internationally recognized publication ethics.

The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to request additional reviews whenever reviewer reports conflict or further specialist evaluation is required.

Quality Assessment Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated using several criteria, including:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

  • Originality and innovation.

  • Significance of the research question.

  • Theoretical contribution.

  • Methodological rigor.

  • Quality of data and analysis.

  • Validity of conclusions.

  • Practical and policy implications.

  • Organization and clarity of writing.

  • Quality of tables, figures, and illustrations.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Accuracy and completeness of references.

Reasons for Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected for reasons including, but not limited to:

  • Lack of originality.

  • Research outside the journal's scope.

  • Weak theoretical contribution.

  • Serious methodological weaknesses.

  • Unsupported conclusions.

  • Insufficient academic contribution.

  • Plagiarism or excessive similarity.

  • Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data.

  • Duplicate or redundant publication.

  • Ethical violations.

  • Inadequate revision following peer review.

  • Poor language or presentation that substantially limits scientific communication.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a manuscript has been rejected because of a procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals should clearly explain the basis for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek additional independent review before making a final decision. Decisions following an appeal are considered final.

Post-Publication Review

IRFBM welcomes well-supported concerns regarding published articles.

Where credible evidence indicates errors, ethical concerns, or research misconduct, the journal may initiate an investigation and, where appropriate, publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with internationally accepted publishing standards.

Contact

Questions regarding the peer review process may be directed to:

International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM)
Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS)
Email: editor.irfbm@addsacademy.com