A request for peer reviewing an academic manuscript represents the recognition of the academic performance of the peer reviewer. Journals owe much of their reputation to their peer reviewers. Therefore, it is important to make sure that only manuscripts that are closely related to their own field of expertise are peer-reviewed by them.
The Financial and Economic Review will only accept manuscripts based on their author’s own research and presenting new and novel results or methods or novel approach to a problem. Manuscripts (studies and essays) are assessed by double-blind review. Reviews and descriptions of the literature do not constitute a manuscript; they shall serve as no more than its theoretical background. The literature used in a manuscript shall be relevant and the latest literature shall also be included. The selected method of research shall match the objective laid down. The use of applied research methods supporting the issue under consideration is recommended, as well as the use of current data whenever possible. The manuscript shall have a clear, logical and consistent structure.
The responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are expected to adhere to the Ethical Guidelines of the Financial and Economic Review, and to uphold the highest standards of integrity, confidentiality, and fairness throughout the review process.
Conflict of Interest
If a peer reviewer has any potential conflict of interest with the author(s) (e.g. institutional affiliation, joint research, personal relationship, or recent cooperation), this must be declared immediately to the editor-in-charge. Although the review process is double-blind, peer reviewers should decline the invitation if they recognise the work or cannot provide an unbiased evaluation.
Timeliness
If a peer reviewer cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, they should promptly inform the editor-in-charge to enable timely reassignment.
Objectivity and fairness
Peer reviewers must be objective and based solely on academic quality of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate.
The task of the Peer Reviewers is – among other things – to highlight
- any technical and logical errors,
- any missing literature that is highly relevant to the topic in question,
- any lack of consistency between the title, content and conclusions of the paper and between the data and figures and the text,
- any inappropriateness of the train of thought,
- any lack of adequate argumentation and of sound support for the proposals.
In writing a peer review, the following points shall be taken into account
Plagiarism. A study or essay that contains sections fully or partly borrowed from other works without proper referencing is considered as plagiarism. Suspected plagiarism shall be immediately reported to the editor-in-charge and the editor.
Confidentiality. Every manuscript sent out for peer review shall be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts shall not be disclosed to third parties without the prior approval of the editor-in-charge. The conclusions and results of the manuscript may be used prior to the peer review only with the author’s prior written consent. The data and research results accessed during the peer review process classify as confidential data and must not be used by the peer reviewers in their own research. If the peer reviewer requires the involvement of a third party in the peer review process, the editor-in-charge shall be notified in advance.
The peer reviewer will remain anonymous throughout the whole process. The author(s) must not be made aware of the identity of the peer reviewer, and therefore name, position, easily identifiable office and earlier academic achievements shall not be indicated in peer reviews. The peer reviewer must never contact any of the authors in any case.
Evaluation Criteria
Originality. The peer reviewer shall assess whether the manuscript contains sufficiently new/novel results/approach and whether it is suitable for publication. What degree of academic contribution does it represent? Does it meet the requirements demanded by the journal? Is the research question significant and sufficiently scientific?
Structure
Layout and format. Our authors must comply with the Guidelines for Authors, which concern mostly the writing of the manuscript. The expected structure of studies is: Introduction/Literature review, Methodology, Results, Discussion/Conclusion (IMRaD). The structure of essays is less strict. If a study fails to satisfy these requirements, the peer review shall highlight this fact.
Title. Does it capture the subject matter discussed in the manuscript clearly and well?
Abstract. Does it represent the contents/message of the manuscript?
Introduction. It shall be decided whether the author is sufficiently clear in presenting specifically what he/she wishes to achieve with his/her manuscript and whether he/she identifies accurately the problem he/she wishes to explore. Essentially, the introductory section shall review the relevant Hungarian and international literature, locating the study/essay within a well-defined context. Here, the author shall briefly review the results of other authors and indicate whether he/she wishes to expand the theoretical framework or refute it. This section contains a description of the research to be carried out, the hypotheses and the general research methodologies and approaches.
Graphic representations and emphases. Figures and tables shall be sufficiently informative for the readers and shall match the main argument of the manuscript. Do the statistical data visualisation methods employed represent the data used well? Are the figures and tables, and the data visualisation methods used in them, consistent?
Methodology. Does the author present clearly how he/she arrived at the data? Is the methodology selected suitable to answer the research question? Are there sufficient quantities of data to duplicate the research? If the method is new, is it presented in a consistent and exhaustive manner? Was the sample selected properly?
Results. In this section, the author shall describe the results and conclusions he/she arrived at through his/her research. It shall be decided whether the analysis was conducted to the appropriate academic standard. Is the statistical approach satisfactory? Importantly, this is not the section where the results shall be interpreted.
Conclusion and Discussion. The assertions in this section shall be predicated on the results. It is important for the assertions to be well-reasoned. Does the author indicate how the results relate to the expectations and to earlier research? Does the manuscript contradict or, rather, support the earlier theoretical approach? Is there any mention of how the research will contribute to academic progress in the given field?
Language and style. If the manuscript contains a multitude of spelling and grammatical errors, these do not have to be corrected. However, the editor-in-charge shall be notified about it.
Earlier research. If a manuscript relies on earlier research, it will be important to decide whether it presents the antecedents properly. Were certain important works omitted? Are the references appropriate?
Reviewer Acknowledgement and Policy Links
By accepting to review for the Financial and Economic Review, peer reviewers acknowledge and agree to comply with the Journal’s Ethical Guidelines, Open Access Policy and Copyright, licencing and archiving terms.
In the light of the above, we ask our peer reviewers to underline the relevant text, if applicable, and then add their suggestions for changes to complete their peer review!
Editors of the Financial and Economic Review
Budapest, 01.11.2026