Central European Economic Journal (CEEJ) is dedicated to fair, fast, and professional double-blind peer review. We make every effort to ensure that the review process runs in a timely manner. CEEJ tries to offer their authors timely advice on how to make the manuscripts as useful for prospective readers as possible. Successful submissions combine state-of-the-art theories with convincing empirical verification. Therefore, we expect that a referee report indicates what theory (or theories) the author relies on. It would be of particular importance to see an expert opinion on whether the theory (theories) applied in the paper are referred to adequately, and whether the references are relevant without a doubt. In particular, we are grateful if the referees confirm that what the author sees as the value added of his/her paper indeed addresses a salient issue that has not been analysed in the literature so far. CEEJ acknowledges the fact that there may be contributions where a novel idea or a concept is so important and striking that empirical material is of secondary importance. However, a more likely case is that the idea is not revolutionary, but the paper verifies a known concept against some new empirical data. In this case, the referees are expected to determine whether the verification replicates something that can be found in the literature, or perhaps new interesting aspects are discovered. Most papers end with a concluding section. The author summarizes what he/she did and what his/her suppositions imply for economic theory and economic policy. The referees are expected to discuss whether the conclusions are justified by the theory and empirical material applied or, perhaps, even more, general statements could be attempted. To structure comments reported by reviewers, CEEJ provides a review form, in which reviewers refer to the aims and contribution of the research, the literature sources used, the applied theory, research design and methods, and the results obtained. General comments are also necessary in order to judge whether the paper can be published. On top of that many reviewers detect arithmetic mistakes, strange abbreviations (obvious to some specialists only), unclear definitions, etc. Such technical comments are also very valuable, both for the author and the editors of CEEJ.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of our reviewers who devoted their time and attention to assess the papers submitted to our journal in the past years. Reviewers in 2021 Reviewers in 2020 Reviewers in 2019 Reviewers in 2018 Reviewers in 2017 Reviewers in 2016 Reviewers in 2015 Reviewers in 2014
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief
Anna Matysiak
University of Warsaw, Poland
Advisory Board Chairman
Robert Faff
University of Queensland, Australia
Managing Editors
Renata Gabryelczyk
Statistical Editor
Natalia Nehrebecka
Technical Editor
Natalia Starzykowska
Associate Editors
Catalin Albu
Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
Anna Białek-Jaworska
Anna Maria Ferragina
University of Salerno, Italy
Irena Jindrichovska
Metropolitan University Prague, Czech Republic
Christopher Koliba
University of Vermont, USA
Jerzy Konieczny
Wilfrid Laurier University and RCEA, Canada
Joanna Mackiewicz-Łyziak
Piotr Modzelewski
Dagmara Mycielska
open access journal
University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Długa 44/50 00-241 Warsaw, Poland
Contact