ESIC Market


Peer review process

Double-blind peer review
ESIC Market operates a rigorous and transparent "double-blind" peer review process.

Double-blind peer review is a methodology that helps, on the one hand, the Editorial Board to make better decisions about the proposed articles and, on the other hand, the authors to improve their academic work for publication.

Note: The deadlines for the different stages of the peer review process are indicated in the Editorial Process.

Selection of reviewers and submission of the original for review

Once the original has been deemed suitable in the initial check, the Editorial Board sends the anonymised manuscript to the blind peer review process. The article will be assigned to two members of the Scientific Board of Reviewers who are experts in the main topic of the article and who have no potential conflict of interest with the authors to carry out the scientific-technical evaluation of the paper.

When a reviewer has agreed to undertake a review but, for a justified reason, is unable to do so, the Editorial Board will assign another reviewer. When more than one reviewer declines an invitation to review, which may affect the time limits, the authors will be notified of this circumstance in case they wish the process to continue or prefer to send the text to another publication.

Reviewers and transparency

ESIC Market has a large body of national and international reviewers who are experts in the focus and scope of the journal. They are independent and outside the authors' circles (co-authors, co-workers, etc.). In fact, before being assigned to a review, reviewers and authors are carefully checked to ensure that they do not belong to the same institution, and are asked to declare any possible conflict of interest.

Whether or not the manuscript is published, ESIC Market publishes the names of all reviewers at the end of each calendar year.

Review criteria

To carry out the review process, reviewers use a standardised template with general comments for editors and general and specific comments for authors. The reviewers complete and return the template to the editors via OJS, ensuring the registration and traceability of the process. All documents are anonymised to ensure maximum objectivity and quality in the process.

Reviewers must report on the following evaluation criteria:

- Formal aspects: Adequacy of the organisation and presentation of the contents (title; abstract; keywords; article structure; wording; figures, tables and graphs; and references, citations and sources subject to APA 7th edition).
- Evaluation of the content: Originality, treatment and approach to the subject. Interest and topicality of the subject. Objectives and starting hypotheses. Methodology. Data and materials used. Results. Academic quality. Contribution to knowledge and impact on society. State of the art. Conclusions. Up-to-dateness and number of bibliographical references.

General criteria for acceptance of originals

The editors, once they have received all the evaluations and recommendations from the reviewers, may send the papers to new reviewers if they find doubts or controversies in the evaluations received. Subsequently, they present to the Editorial Board the reasons why they consider that the article should be accepted or not. It is the Editorial Board that makes the final decision to accept or reject the article.

In this sense, in order for the article to be accepted for publication, regardless of the specific considerations made by the reviewers on the originals received, the articles must comply with the following general considerations:

- Offer a valuable and significant result to the knowledge of the area, and specifically to the contributions in the fields of economics and business.
- Fully respect the journal's publication rules.
- To fully comply with the article structure required by the journal, both in terms of form and content and the nature required by this model of scientific presentation.
- To comply scrupulously with all the ethical requirements for scientific publication to which the journal ESIC Market subscribes.
- Pass the anti-plagiarism system report that the Editorial Board always takes into account to ensure the quality of the papers.

These requirements are essential for the final acceptance of the papers. If the originals do not meet these requirements, they will be rejected.

Notification of the editorial decision

When the Editorial Board of the journal issues a final judgement, the possible decisions may be:

- Accepted without changes.
- Accepted with minor changes. The article is accepted but the author must correct minor problems detailed in the report sent by the editor, at the proposal of the reviewers.

- Accepted with major changes. The article is accepted and is of interest for publication, but requires substantive changes that affect important parts of the article in order to be published. In the report submitted by the editor, the indications on the changes are detailed.
- Rejected. The article has important deficiencies that prevent it from being published. The article is archived in OJS. The procedure is closed. When an article is rejected, it cannot be sent again to the journal.

In either case, the authors always receive an express notification by email through OJS with the reasoned report of the Editorial Board, accompanied by the evaluations made by the reviewers. So that the constructive comments and recommendations of both can help them to improve their work.

Complaints and grievance process: If they wish, authors may submit their complaints and/or grievances about the evaluation procedure and results through the contact systems available. The editors will be responsible for responding to such complaints, suggestions or claims. The final decision issued by the editors will be final and will put an end to the complaint process.

Adjustments to the originals

In the two cases in which the originals require modifications, the articles are returned to the authors so that they can make the relevant changes. Once the adjustments have been made, the authors must upload the corrected version to OJS.

Cchecking the adjustments

The editors (in the case of minor changes) or reviewers (in the case of major changes) will check that all necessary adjustments have been made to the articles. If this is not the case, manuscripts will remain in the review phase until they either conform acceptably to the requirements of the editors or reviewers or an unfavourable report is issued.

Final editorial decision

In the first case, the article would be accepted and would pass to the next phase of style corrections. In the second case, the article would be rejected.

In both cases, authors always receive an email notification via OJS with the final decision of the Editorial Board.

Guidelines for reviewers

Competence: Reviewers will always be specialists in the subject and object of study of the article subject to evaluation, and will refuse to evaluate those texts in which they consider that they do not have the necessary competence or knowledge to do so.


a. Reviewers will refrain from evaluating texts if there is any conflict of interest.
b. Reviewers must adhere strictly to the evaluation deadlines. If they are unable to do so, they must refuse to carry out the evaluation once a request for a new reviewer has been received.
c. Reviewers shall exercise due diligence when in possession of the reserved material they receive for evaluation.

Acknowledgement: Reviewers will receive a certificate attesting to the texts evaluated for the journal ESIC Market. Likewise, the reviews will be remunerated with 100 euros per article reviewed, provided that they are delivered on time and with the quality required by the Editorial Board.

Call for reviewers

If you are an expert in any of the topics that form part of the journal's focus and would like to participate in the article evaluation process, you can register as a reviewer on our website and send a 300-word CV to the contact email: Your proposal will be examined by the Editorial Board and if it is accepted you will be contacted.

Anonymity and confidentiality
Editors, authors and reviewers will keep all details of the editorial and peer-review process of manuscript submissions confidential. The peer review process is confidential and is conducted anonymously. All details about submitted manuscripts are confidential and no comments are made to external parties or organisations about manuscripts under consideration or if they are rejected.

In accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and associated data, and not redistribute it without permission from the journal.

We regret any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or attempt to determine their identities. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we make every effort to ensure this confidentiality.

Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is ultimately published, journal correspondence, referee reports and other confidential material will not be published without the prior written consent of the parties involved.