Type: Double-blind peer review; Authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

Reviewers: At least two independent experts per manuscript; a third reviewer or associate editor is involved if reports diverge.

Oversight: The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors ensure compliance with COPE standards.

Reviewers are chosen for subject-matter expertise, scholarly track record, absence of conflicts of interest, and, where possible, geographical and institutional diversity.

Manuscripts are assessed for:

• Methodological rigor and appropriateness of analyses.
• Data integrity & transparency; adherence to EQUATOR guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE).
• Originality & contribution to business, economics, and social studies.
• Clarity & coherence and alignment with Aim & Scope.
• Ethical compliance (e.g., GDPR, consent).

• Initial editorial screening for scope, formatting, ethics.
• Peer review phase: reviewers typically return reports within 3–5 weeks.
• Decisions: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject.
• Revisions & possible re-review after major changes.
• Appeals: as per Complaints & Appeals Policy.

Reviewers must keep confidentiality, declare conflicts, give objective, constructive feedback, avoid submitting AI-generated reports, and may co-review with juniors only if they declare and acknowledge it.

The Editorial Board appoints expert reviewers, resolves conflicting recommendations, enforces deadlines and quality standards, maintains anonymity, and manages alleged misconduct in accordance with COPE Peer Review Guidelines.

Authors receive complete reviewer reports and editorial decisions; major revisions may undergo re- review to ensure requested changes have been addressed.

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review
  https://publicationethics.org/peerreview
• DOAJ – Principles of Transparency & Best Practice
  https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/
• EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines
  https://www.equator-network.org/