Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research
 Join us in research experience!
   Review Info      Peer Review
                                                                                             ISSN: 2247-6172; ISSN-L: 2247-617

Reviewers guidelines:  

Peer review policy

REASER deems the peer review essential for the publishing process. It validates and confirms an author’s work and establishes a method by which a manuscript can be effectively evaluated.

If the manuscript is sent for review, it will be evaluated in a double-blind peer-review process, which takes approximately 5 to 6 months, not including any time of revision by the author. Therefore, the whole review process (from the submission time to the decision on whether to reject or send the manuscript through peer review and to the final editorial decision) could last approximately 6 to 9 months, depending on the editorial workflow. Only the manuscripts which respect the REASER Template (and all the instructions included in the template) will be sent for peer review.

REASER has a mandatory ORCID field (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) that must be filled in as part of the submission process.

All corresponding authors for REASER articles must supply an ORCID identifier as part of the submission process. If the corresponding author does not already have an ID, they will need to create one to submit a manuscript to REASER. More information about ORCID is available at

Most REASER reviewers are authors, well-known Ph D researchers and professors from all over the world, or sometimes the editors themselves.

All articles submissions will be forwarded to two reviewers for double-blind peer review. The final decision regarding acceptance, minor or major revision, or rejection of an article will be based on the evaluation reports received from the reviewers.

REASER reviewers duties:

Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and the reviewers’ views should be expressed only with solid supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify published work that has not been quoted by the authors. They should report to the editors any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed manuscript and any other published papers of which they have personal knowledge.

Conflict of interests: Any unpublished materials must not be used in a reviewer’s own research. Any information or ideas obtained through peer review process shall not be disclosed or used for personal advantage. Reviewers should refuse for evaluation manuscripts in case of conflict of interests resulting from any type of relationship or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.

REASER evaluation criteria: 

Preliminary criterion: the article relevance to the topics and standards of REASER

 1. Novelty of the article 
Is the article original? 
Does it contribute to the evolution of knowledge in the socio-economic field? 
Is the research issue an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for REASER it might be helpful to think in terms of which percentile it is in. Is it over 50%?

2. Organization of the article 
Is the article clearly structured?
Are all the required elements present: abstract, key-words, JEL codes, introduction, research methodology, results, conclusions? 
  • Title: Is the title fully descriptive?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Key-words: Are they adequate for the content of the article?
  • JEL codes: Are they according to the Journal of Economic Literature Classification System? (see
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author attempted to achieve accurately and clearly state the issue investigated in the article? Generally, the introduction is two to three paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research and provide general context of the article. It should also describe the hypothesis(es) and the general design or method.
  • Research methodology: Does it accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question debated in the article? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a logical sequence? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials used for research been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: The authors should clearly explain what they discovered in the research; they shall not include any interpretation in this section.
  • Conclusions. Are the conclusions of the article supported by the results? Are the conclusions reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to previous research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusions explain how the research has moved the scientific socio-economic knowledge forward?
  • Figures and tables: Considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the potential reader, are they an important part of the content? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent?

3. Quality of the English language:
 If an article is poorly English written, you do not need to correct the English language mistakes. Advise the editors of the poor quality and allow them to take appropriate action.

4. Previous Research:
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the cited references in the text and the references list according to APA Style as stated in the Guide of Authors?

5. Ethical Issues:
  • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of previous work/s, let the editor know. Please cite the previous work/s. 
  • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue let the editor know explaining why you believe the results to be fraudulent.
  • Other ethical concerns: If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.

Recommendation regarding an article:

  • Accepted without revision; 
  • Accepted but needs minor revision; 
  • Accepted but needs major revision;
  • Rejected due to poor quality or out of scope  

Review developed by Pro Global Science Association.
Copyright © 2010  Pro Global Science Association