Peer Review Policy

Peer review process

The peer review process is a fundamental mechanism to ensure the scientific quality, rigor and relevance of the manuscripts published in e3 – Journal of Economics, Business and Entrepreneurship in the community of Portuguese-speaking countries.

Its main purpose is to provide constructive, objective and timely feedback to authors, contributing to the improvement of submitted manuscripts.

Review model

The journal operates primarily under a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

In specific circumstances, and when justified, the journal may adopt single-blind or open peer review. The final decision regarding the review model rests with the editorial team.

Review criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope
  • originality and contribution to knowledge
  • methodological rigor
  • clarity of presentation
  • adequacy of references
  • ethical compliance

Review stages

  1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal platform and receive confirmation of receipt.

  1. Desk review

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team conduct an initial assessment of scope, quality and compliance with formal requirements.

  1. Peer review

If suitable, the manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers are invited to accept or decline within five working days and are expected to complete their evaluation within approximately one month.

  1. Editorial decision

Based on reviewers’ reports, the manuscript may be:

  • accepted
  • accepted with minor or major revisions
  • rejected

In case of conflicting evaluations, a third reviewer may be consulted.
The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethical and confidentiality principles

Reviewers must:

  • treat manuscripts as confidential documents
  • declare conflicts of interest
  • provide objective and constructive feedback

Review timeline

The journal aims to ensure an efficient review process, with an average evaluation period of approximately four to eight weeks.

Reviewer recognition

The journal acknowledges the valuable contribution of reviewers to the editorial process and encourages them to record their peer review activity on platforms such as ORCID or Publons, in accordance with confidentiality requirements.