Use the system ScholarOne to submit your manuscript

For Reviewers

Refereeing Process Guidelines

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.

Publish with us at
Check our issues    

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

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.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

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.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

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.

Editorial Board


Anna Matysiak

University of Warsaw, Poland

Advisory Board Chairman

Robert Faff

University of Queensland, Australia

Managing Editors

Renata Gabryelczyk

University of Warsaw, Poland

Statistical Editor

Natalia Nehrebecka

University of Warsaw, Poland

Technical Editor

Natalia Starzykowska

University of Warsaw, Poland

Associate Editors

Catalin Albu

Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania

Anna Białek-Jaworska

University of Warsaw, Poland

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

University of Warsaw, Poland

Piotr Modzelewski

University of Warsaw, Poland

Dagmara Mycielska

University of Warsaw, Poland

Read about Editorial Advisory Board

open access journal

University of Warsaw, 
Faculty of Economic Sciences, 
Długa 44/50 
00-241 Warsaw, Poland