The north east economic review (NEER)

A research journal of north eastern economic association

Guidelines to Reviewers for Evaluating papers submitted to the North East Economic Review

The North East Economic Review (NEER), is a Open Access Online Journal published by the North Eastern Economic Association (NEEA).

The journal’s endeavour is to promote and propagate knowledge related to socioeconomic problems and issues. The journal also encourages conceptual and empirical research based articles of relevance to academicians and practitioners in the different sub areas of economics, finance, banking, operations management, human resource management, demographic issues, international business, environmental issues, applied economics, risk management, corporate governance, globalization, business research, strategic management and other related fields. It would also publish authoritative review articles on the above mentioned sub-fields which developed considerably in recent years. Book reviews and abstracts of Ph.D dissertations shall also be considered for publication.

The language of the journal is UK English. The review process is double blind and shall be rigorous. A submitted article shall be published after it satisfies the reviewers and accepted by the editorial board. However, the referee’s report is the only criteria for considering the manuscript for publication.

The article to be reviewed shall be sent to the reviewer in a way the name, affiliation of the author(s) shall be hidden. In the similar fashion, the name of the reviewer shall also be hidden from the author(s).

The reviewer is expected to make an objective assessment of both the technical rigor and the novelty of the presented work. Key features of a review shall include

  • An outline of the conceptual advance over previously published work in the paper may be mentioned.
  • A summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the paper. In this regard, we encourage referees to comment on the quality and presentation of the figures as well as the validity of the statistical methods used to interpret them.
  • A specific recommendation like accepting/rejecting/to be considered after revisions are done, shall be mentioned clearly.
  • The reasons for that recommendation, and

Cover comments to the editors

  • If some specific aspects of the report seem inappropriate for presentation to the authors, they can be sent as comments for the editors’ eyes only. However, all general concerns that impact the reviewer’s overall recommendation should be indicated clearly in the comments to the author as well, not just in the comments to the editor.
  • In general, the tone of the comments to the authors should be consistent with the tone of the comments to the editors. From the authors’ point of view, the final editorial decision should be a direct reflection of the reviewer comments that they receive.
  • A more general context in which comments to the editor can aid the editorial process is as an executive summary of the comments to the authors. In addition, this is an appropriate place to discuss any suspicions of ethical violations—either in the research itself or in the manner in which it is presented. Such issues might include suspected data manipulation or fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publications or research subjects.
  • Reviews can and should be critical, but we ask reviewers to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalized criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of the referee.
  • A timely and efficient review process benefits all thestakeholders of the journals. So abnormal delay in reviewing the article are not helpful.
  • For the sake of editorial consistency and fairness to the authors, we request that referees who agree to review one version of a given manuscript also commit to reviewing future revisions if necessary. In an effort to minimize the resulting burden, we make every effort to handle revisions editorially and to curtail unproductive resubmission cycles.