Review procedure of scientific papers submitted for publication in the Journal of Insurance, Financial Markets and Consumer Protection

  1. Each submitted for publication manuscript is subject to preliminary content-based review performed by the editors and formal assessment performed by the assistant editor. Content-based review assesses the innovativeness and potential impact of the manuscript as well as its compliance with the aim and scope of JoIN. Formal assessment assesses the compliance of the manuscript with the technical requirements of JoIN (see JoIN template), including the anonymity of the manuscript. In case of:
    1. negative preliminary review, the assistant editor immediately contact with the author and presents reasons for rejection. Editorial board may also ask the author to introduce modifications to the manuscript, specifying the deadline and stating the renewal of the procedure providing fulfilment of these conditions.
    2. positive preliminary review, the editors decide to forward the paper to two reviewers specialising in the areas corresponding to the topic of the article. The reviewers are affiliated with entities other than the author’s affiliated institution. Moreover, in case of an article in English at least one reviewer shall be affiliated beyond the country of author’s affiliation. The list of reviewers on the JoIN website is updated each quarter.
  2. The review is performed with double-blind review process model, which means mutual lack of information concerning the identity of the reviewer and the author of the paper.
  3. Each review is prepared in a specific written form (download file), ending with conclusion whether the article: (a) is accepted for publication, (b) requires minor revision, (c) requires major revision (with resending manuscript for further evaluation), (d) is rejected as inappropriate for publication. The reviewer may also implement own suggestions to the original text.
  4. The editor-in-chief decides on further proceeding of the manuscript on the basis of the reviews:
    1. for two positive reviews, the article is considered for further works.
    2. for two negative reviews, the editor-in-chief decides not to submit the manuscript to publication. The assistant editor informs the author about article rejection and presents the reviews.
    3. for one positive and one negative reviews, the manuscript is sent to a third independent reviewer.
  5. The author has 2 weeks to introduce to the manuscript the changes suggested by the reviewers or to justify the reason for not implementing changes in form of the cover letter.
  6. If the final conclusion of both reviewers is positive, the editor-in-chief decides to accept the manuscript for publication. Approved manuscript is subject to language proof and (if necessary) statistical edition. The author may be asked for co-operation on these stages.