The Transdisciplinary Journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE)
Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy for Ecological Economics
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Ecological Economics and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed, in general, within 2 weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous throughout the process, unless the reviwer chooses to reveal his/her indentity.
How the reviewer is selected
Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Authors are asked to provide the names and addresses of up to 5 potential reviewers when they submit their manuscript to Ecological Economics - it is likely that some of the reviewers selected by the Editors will be from this list, but this is at the discretion of the Editors. Our reviewer database is constantly being updated.
Reviewer reports
Reviewers are asked, among other to evaluate whether the manuscript :
- Is original
- Contributes significantly to the field
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions
-Has appropriate and clearly presented tbales, figures, charts, and images that support the narrative to the appropriate extent.
- Adequately references previous relevant work
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. However, poor English can be a reason for rejection or revision. Some manuscripts will have significant intellectual merit but suffer from poor English. Acceptance of such manuscripts may be accepted contingent on language as well as content revision.
How long does the peer review process take?
We aim to have an initial decision within 3 months, but please realise that it can take longer: sometimes the process of finding two reviews is difficult. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial reviewers within 2-4 weeks. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers and the Editor(s).
Editor's Decision is final
Reviewers advise the Editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
