Double-blind Peer Review Process

Dirassat Journal: Economic Issue (DJEI) implements a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review model where the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous throughout the entire editorial evaluation process. Our review system complies strictly with:

  • Recommendations of the Directorate General for Scientific Research and Technological Development (DGRSDT).
  • Standards of the Algerian Scientific Journals Platform (ASJP).
  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (OASPA / DOAJ).

Stage 1 Core Review Principles & Confidentiality

  • Rigorous Anonymity: All identifying information (names, affiliations, email addresses, and self-identifying acknowledgments) is completely removed from manuscripts before transmission to reviewers.
  • Confidentiality & Data Protection: Submitted manuscripts are strictly privileged documents. Referees must not share, discuss, or utilize any data or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or competitive advantage.
  • AI Usage Prohibition: In accordance with COPE guidelines, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts into generative AI platforms (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) to protect intellectual property and data confidentiality.
  • Conflict of Interest Recusal: Reviewers with direct, personal, institutional, or collaborative ties with authors must immediately decline the evaluation request.

Stage 2 Peer Review Workflow & Decision Process

1. Online Submission via ASJP & Co-Author Confirmation
↓
2. Preliminary Screening & Plagiarism Check (Editorial Desk)
↓
3. Double-Blind Peer Review (2 Independent Reviewers — Max 30 Days)
↓
4. Editorial Decision & Author Feedback (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject)
  1. Initial Desk Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief and Reading Committee evaluate scope relevance, adherence to the official template, and similarity index. Manuscripts failing basic editorial criteria or showing plagiarism are immediately desk rejected.
  2. External Expert Review: Qualifying manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the specific domain. Referees evaluate theoretical framing, empirical rigor, methodological robustness, results interpretation, and APA 7th compliance.
  3. Conflicting Review Reports (Third Casting Arbiter): If one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, the manuscript is automatically referred to a third independent referee whose evaluation breaks the tie.

Stage 3 Decision Categories & Author Response Guidelines

  • Accept: The article is accepted in its current form and proceeds directly to copy-editing and layout production.
  • Minor Revision: Minor adjustments (e.g., editorial formatting, figure clarifications, reference adjustments). Authors must return revised files within 7 to 10 days.
  • Major Revision: Substantial methodological, empirical, or structural modifications. Authors must submit the revised manuscript along with a comprehensive point-by-point Response to Reviewers Table within 15 to 30 days. The paper is re-evaluated by the original referees.
  • Reject: The study lacks novelty, contains irremediable methodological flaws, or breaches publishing ethics.

Review Timeline: The standard peer-review round takes between 4 to 6 weeks from submission to final decision, subject to the speed of author revisions and reviewer response times.