Financial and Economic Review (FER), published by the Magyar Nemzeti Bank (the Central Bank of Hungary), is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, in full alignment with the Code of Ethics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/). The following Code of Ethics sets out the responsibilities of editors, peer reviewers, and authors, as well as the principles governing peer review, authorship, and research integrity.
General Information
The Magyar Nemzeti Bank covers all costs related to editing and publishing FER. Both the printed and online versions are freely accessible and open access.
Tasks and Responsibilities of the Editorial Board
The members of the Editorial Board are distinguished researchers and senior professionals with substantial experience in the fields of economics, finance and banking. They include both academics with advanced scientific degrees and active publication records, as well as leading practitioners from the financial sector with a strong interest in research and policy analysis. Board members actively support the decision process by contributing their expertise and insights.
Decisions on manuscripts selected for peer review are made at the quarterly Editorial Board meetings. All papers approved for review undergo a double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers, who cannot be the member of the Editorial Board or the Editorial staff.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Charge and the Editor-in-Chief formulate a recommendation regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript, which is then discussed and approved by the Editorial Board.
Editorial Board members do not take part in the evaluation or decision-making concerning their own submissions or manuscripts where a conflict of interest may exist.
This combination of academic excellence and professional expertise ensures that the Financial and Economic Review maintains both scholarly rigor and real-world relevance.
Tasks of the Editors
The Editor-in-Charge manages the peer-review process and act as the main point of contact between authors, peer reviewers, and the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the journal’s overall editorial direction and ensures that each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent qualified experts in the relevant field and that the review process follows the journal’s ethical and professional standards. The Editors support the work of Editor-in-Charge and Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Charge prepares written recommendations based on reviewer feedback and ensures compliance with ethical and editorial norms throughout the process. The Editor-in-Chief finalises these recommendations and supervises the journal’s publication schedule.
Ensuring Equal Opportunities
All manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, regardless of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion or political beliefs.
Source Attribution & Plagiarism
All manuscripts are checked for originality before being sent for peer review. Suspected plagiarism during reviewing process shall be also immediately reported to the Editor-in-Charge. Cases of confirmed plagiarism will result in the rejection of the manuscript or, if discovered post-publication, the retraction of article in accordance with COPE guidelines.
By submitting a manuscript, authors acknowledge that their work may be subject to similarity or plagiarism checks using available tools. The journal may use software to identify textual overlap.
This verification procedure is conducted solely to maintain research integrity and uphold ethical publishing standards in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Confidentiality and Competing Interest
Editors and board members must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscripts. Information about submissions is shared only with those directly involved in the editorial process.
Unpublished materials may not be used for personal research.
All editors must disclose potential competing interest (financial, institutional, or personal) and recuse themselves from related decision-making.
Investigation of Research Misconduct and Sanctions
Reported cases of misbehaviour, research misconduct or alleged fraud are investigated by a panel of board members chaired by the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days following COPE guidelines. The investigation may involve communication with authors, institutions, or relevant authorities. Authors will be contacted under their provided email address and given an opportunity to address the concerns.
Depending on the investigation’s outcome, the following measures may be implemented:
1) During Review: If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be immediately rejected and returned to the author.
2) Post-Publication: Depending on the infraction, an erratum/correction or an expression of concern may be placed with the article.
3) Retraction: In severe cases, the article may be retracted. Retracted articles will remain on the platform but will be watermarked as “retracted”, with an accompanying note explaining the reason for this action.
4) External Notifications: The author’s institution may be informed of the misconduct. Additionally, a notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author’s and article’s bibliographic record.
Duties of the Peer Reviewers
Peer review is a key part of maintaining scholarly quality. Peer reviewers provide expert feedback that assists the editors and improves the scientific standard of submissions.
The Peer Review Process
Each manuscript in “Study” and “Essay” sections, the review of which was supported by the Editorial Board, is evaluated by two independent experts in the relevant field under a double-blind system.
A third reviewer is invited only if the two initial reviewers’ opinions differ significantly and one of them recommends rejection. If one reviewer recommends major revisions while the other recommends rejection, the manuscript is not proposed for publication.
After the authors submit revised versions addressing the reviewers’ comments, the revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers. If the reviewers consider the revisions satisfactory and suitable for publication, the Editor-in-Charge and Editor-in-Chief formulate a recommendation to the Editorial Board, which makes the final decision.
Manuscript Evaluation Outcomes
1) Acceptance in its submitted form: The manuscript is accepted without changes.
2) Acceptance with minor corrections: The manuscript is accepted, provided the authors implement minor revisions specified by the reviewers or editors.
3) Acceptance with fundamental corrections: The manuscript is conditionally accepted; revisions of fundamental scope or complexity are required before final approval.
4) Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and is not recommended for acceptance.
Eligibility Criteria for Manuscripts
Formal Requirements
Manuscripts must comply with the journal’s formal standards and requirements (see the authors guidelines and the template), including all mandatory elements, alignment with the journal’s scope, and proper reference management.
Scientific and Professional Merit
The manuscript shall demonstrate scientific and professional quality. Peer reviewers evaluate:
· Alignment of the title, abstract, and keywords with the manuscript content
· Originality and relevance of sources
· Clear structure with coherent chapters and logical transitions
· Clearly defined research objectives, methodology and data appropriateness
· Clarity and validity of results and conclusions
· Necessity and quality of tables, figures or illustrations
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Information is shared only with authorised editorial staff involved in the review and publication process.
Objectivity
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based assessments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Disclosure and Competing Interest
Peer reviewers must not use any unpublished material for personal research without the author’s written consent. Any information obtained during the review process is confidential and cannot be used for personal gain. Peer reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a potential competing interests with the authors, their institutions, or related entities.
Research Ethics Policy for Authors
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice.
Submission of the Manuscript
By submitting a manuscript to Financial and Economic Review, authors confirm that the work is original, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full). If the submitted work represents an expansion of previous research, authors must provide full transparency regarding the reuse of material to avoid concerns related to text-recycling (‘self-plagiarism’).
Manuscripts must clearly present research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions, with sufficient detail and references to ensure reproducibility. Results should be presented honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation (including image-based manipulation). Authors must adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting, and processing data. All critical writings – including reviews, reports – must be accurate, unbiased, and supported by appropriate references. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged. Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behaviour or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person. Deliberately inaccurate or misleading statements are considered unethical and may lead to the rejection of the manuscript.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript represents their own original work. No data, text, or theories by others may be presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given; this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarised, and/or paraphrased. Quotation marks must be used to indicate words taken directly from another source.
Any use of others’ work, data or ideas must be properly cited and referenced. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited and will result in rejection. Authors are also responsible for securing permissions for the use of copyrighted material, software, questionnaires/surveys, and scales used in their studies. Authors must comply with all relevant copyright laws.
Important note: The journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
Prohibition of Multiple or Simultaneous Publication
Submitting the same manuscript to multiple venues simultaneously is considered unethical. Manuscripts already published in other peer-reviewed journals cannot be submitted to our journal.
A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. ‘salami-slicing/publishing’). Authors must ensure that each submission represents a substantial and distinct contribution to the field.
Authorship of the Manuscript
The Journal assumes that all authors agreed with the content and that all gave explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organisation where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
Only individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript preparation should be listed as authors. This includes those who have:
· Participated in the design, execution, or analysis of the research;
· Contributed substantially to drafting or revising the manuscript;
· Reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
· Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Individuals who provided technical support, editorial assistance, or other non-substantive contributions should not be listed as authors, but may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
Social Science Research Involving Human Subjects
For research involving human participants (e.g., surveys or interviews), manuscripts must include a statement confirming that participants provided informed consent (or explain why consent was not required). Participation shall be voluntary, revocable at any time without consequences, and handled in compliance with data protection laws. Anonymity must be ensured, and special attention shall be paid to participants’ social and cultural sensitivity.
Artificial Intelligence Policy
Authorship Criteria: Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not satisfy the criteria for authorship as they cannot take accountability for the work.
Responsibility: Authors are solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the final version of the text, ensuring it is free from errors in grammar, punctuation, and tone.
Human Accountability: There must be human accountability for any content generated or improved by AI; the edits must reflect the authors’ original work. If an AI tool was for generating content, its use must be clearly documented in the Methods section. Use for basic copy-editing (grammar style) does not require disclosure.
Disclosure and Competing Interests
Authors are required to disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could perceived as influencing their research. This includes, but is not limited to, sources of funding, employment, or any professional affiliations related to the matter of the manuscript. Transparency in these declarations is essential to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process and the credibility of the published work.
General Principle: Authors must disclose any interests that could be perceived as influencing the research or the editorial process.
Disclosure Requirements: Authors are requested to disclose interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work. This includes interests within the last 3 years of beginning the research or preparing the work for submission.
Conflict Definition: Disclosure of interests provides a transparent process and helps readers form their own judgments of potential bias. This does not imply that a financial relationship with a sponsoring organisation is inappropriate.
Editorial Board and/or Editor Submissions: Editorial Board Members and Editors are welcome to submit papers to the journal. However, these submissions are subject to the exact same peer-review process as any other manuscript.
Recusal Protocol: Board Members or Editors who are authors must exclude themselves from decision regarding peer-reviewing and handling the manuscript. In such cases, another independent Editor will be assigned to oversee the process. Editorial Board or Editor status has no bearing on editorial consideration.
Research Integrity, Data Transparency and Open Data Policy
General Principle: The FER promotes full transparency and reproducibility of economic and financial research. Authors are encouraged to share their datasets and processing scripts to allow for the verification of results.
Author Responsibility: Authors are responsible for ensuring that all data and materials, including any custom software code or econometric models used in their analysis, support their published claims and comply with international academic standards. The falsification or selective reporting of data constitutes a breach of publication ethics.
Data Availability Statement: Authors must include a “Data Availability Statement” in their manuscript, specifying where the data and the code can be accessed or stating the reasons for restrictions (e.g., proprietary or confidential data).
Verification: While the FER does not mandate public hosting of all data, authors must be prepared to provide the underlying data and code to the Editors if requested during the peer-review process.
Accountability: The Corresponding Author acts on behalf of all co-authors to ensure that questions related to the integrity or accuracy of the data are appropriately addressed.
Post-Publication Discussions, Corrections, and Retraction of Published Articles
Post-Publication Discussions: The journal encourages scholarly debate and it is open to publishing ‘Letters to the Editor’ or comments that challenge or supplement published findings, provided they meet professional standards. Authors of the original article will be given the opportunity to respond.
Corrections: Authors have an obligation to promptly correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The authors are expected to contact the journal, the Editor-in-Charge and explain the nature of error and how it impacts the article. Depending on the impact, a formal correction (erratum or corrigendum) will be issued and linked to the original article.
Retractions: In cases of severe errors, research misconduct, or compromised results, the article may be retracted following COPE guidelines. Retracted articles will remain accessible but clearly watermarked as “Retracted” with a justification note.
CrossMark: The journal utilises the CrossMark system to ensure that readers are automatically notified of any updates, corrections, or retractions, maintaining the permanent and reliable record of research.
Other Information
Publication Costs: FER does not charge article submission, processing or publication fees.
Open Access: All published content is freely accessible to readers without restrictions.