Reviewer Guidelines

Supporting rigorous, fair, constructive, and independent scholarly evaluation in Green Economics and sustainable economic development.

1. Introduction

Green Economics Review (GER) welcomes qualified scholars and experts in Green Economics and related disciplines to contribute as peer reviewers. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the journal's academic quality, research integrity, and relevance to contemporary economic, social, and environmental challenges.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, evidence-based, and constructive assessments that help authors improve their manuscripts and assist editors in making informed publication decisions. All reviews should be conducted professionally, fairly, and in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer review policy.

2. Reviewer Qualifications

Prospective reviewers should demonstrate relevant academic qualifications, subject expertise, and scholarly experience. The following criteria are used as general guidelines for reviewer selection:

• Hold a Master's or Doctoral degree in a relevant field.
• Have expertise in Green Economics, environmental economics, sustainable resource management, the Green Economy, social justice, or related areas.
• Possess experience reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals or demonstrate appropriate scholarly expertise to conduct a rigorous review.
• Have a record of relevant scholarly publications, preferably in internationally recognized journals, with evidence of research impact and citation where applicable.

Reviewer selection is based on the relevance of expertise to the manuscript under consideration, as well as academic competence, independence, and availability.

3. General Principles of Reviewing

4. Review Focus Areas

Reviewers are encouraged to assess the manuscript as a whole and provide comments on the following aspects, where applicable.

4.1. Presentation and Organization

• Does the manuscript present a coherent and well-developed argument?
• Are the ideas organized logically and communicated clearly?
• Are the sections connected appropriately and structured according to the research objectives?
• Are tables, figures, equations, and other supporting materials placed appropriately and explained in the text?

4.2. Academic Writing and Language

• Is the writing clear, concise, coherent, and appropriate for an academic journal?
• Are terminology, definitions, and technical expressions used consistently?
• Are grammar, sentence structure, and transitions adequate for communicating the research?
• Are there unnecessary repetitions, ambiguous statements, or unsupported claims?

4.3. Title

• Does the title accurately reflect the manuscript's subject, scope, and principal contribution?
• Is the title clear, concise, informative, and engaging?
• Does it avoid unnecessary abbreviations, vague expressions, and overly broad claims?

4.4. Abstract and Keywords

Reviewers should assess whether the abstract adequately presents:

• The research background and problem.
• The objectives or research questions.
• The methods, data, or analytical approach.
• The principal findings.
• The original contribution and relevant implications.

Reviewers should also check whether the keywords are relevant to the manuscript, sufficiently specific, and useful for indexing and discoverability.

4.5. Introduction

The introduction should:

• Establish the research background, problem, and relevance to Green Economics.
• Identify a clear research gap grounded in relevant literature.
• Present appropriate theories, concepts, and previous empirical findings.
• Explain the originality, significance, and expected contribution of the study.
• State the research objectives or questions clearly in a coherent narrative.
• Develop hypotheses, where applicable, based on theoretical reasoning and prior evidence, with directional expectations when justified.

4.6. Research Methods

• Are the research design and procedures appropriate for the research objectives?
• Are the study population, sample, data sources, variables, measures, and instruments adequately described?
• For survey-based research, are relevant instrument details, item counts, validity evidence, and reliability coefficients reported where appropriate?
• Are data collection procedures, analytical techniques, and model specifications explained sufficiently?
• Are the assumptions, limitations, and potential sources of bias considered where relevant?
• Is sufficient information provided to support reproducibility or replication, subject to ethical, legal, and data-access constraints?
• For qualitative or mixed-methods studies, are sampling, data collection, coding, interpretation, and trustworthiness procedures explained appropriately?

4.7. Results

• Are the findings presented clearly, accurately, and in a logical sequence?
• Are the research questions or hypotheses addressed by the reported results?
• Are tables, figures, charts, and statistical outputs appropriate, legible, and adequately explained?
• Are data presented in a form that supports interpretation without unnecessary repetition?
• Are quantitative results, qualitative evidence, and other reported findings consistent with the methods used?
• Are uncertainty, statistical significance, effect sizes, robustness checks, or other relevant evidence reported where appropriate?
• Do the reported findings avoid unsupported causal claims or conclusions that exceed the evidence?

4.8. Discussion

• Are the findings interpreted in relation to the research questions, theoretical framework, and previous studies?
• Does the discussion explain the meaning and significance of the findings rather than merely repeat the results?
• Are similarities, differences, and possible explanations in relation to existing literature adequately addressed?
• Are the theoretical, policy, managerial, societal, or environmental implications clearly articulated where relevant?
• Are the strengths and limitations of the study acknowledged?
• Are the implications for Green Economics supported by the evidence and appropriately qualified?

4.9. Conclusion and Contributions

• Does the conclusion respond directly to the research objectives or questions?
• Does it synthesize the principal findings without simply repeating the results section?
• Does it clearly identify the study's original contribution to Green Economics theory, policy, measurement, or practice?
• Are recommendations and implications proportionate to the findings?
• Are future research directions, where included, grounded in the study's limitations or findings?

4.10. Length and Relevance

• Is the manuscript length appropriate for the complexity and contribution of the study?
• Are there sections that should be expanded, shortened, combined, reorganized, or removed?
• Does each section contribute meaningfully to the research argument?
• Are literature reviews, tables, figures, and appendices proportionate to the manuscript's needs?

4.11. References, Data, and Research Integrity

• Are relevant and credible sources used to support the research argument?
• Are citations and references consistent with APA 7th Edition and sufficiently complete?
• Are important contributions from relevant literature acknowledged fairly?
• Are data, methods, tables, figures, and interpretations presented transparently and consistently?
• Are potential ethical concerns, undisclosed conflicts of interest, questionable data practices, or possible research misconduct identified and reported confidentially to the Editor?

5. Length and Quality of Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports should be sufficiently detailed to explain the basis of the assessment and help authors understand the changes required. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or contribution of the research and minor issues related to presentation, clarity, or formatting.

• Identify major methodological, theoretical, analytical, or interpretive concerns clearly.
• Provide specific suggestions and, where possible, indicate the relevant section, table, figure, or argument.
• Explain why a particular revision is necessary rather than giving only general criticism.
• Avoid personal, offensive, discriminatory, or dismissive language.
• Do not request citations solely to increase the reviewer's own citation count or the visibility of a particular publication.
• Clearly distinguish essential revisions from optional recommendations.

6. Review Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a recommendation supported by their written assessment. The following options may be used, depending on the journal's review form:

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The Editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

7. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share or distribute them, discuss their contents with unauthorized individuals, or use unpublished information for personal, academic, or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality, including relevant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships. If a conflict cannot be appropriately managed, reviewers should decline the invitation or inform the Editor promptly.

Timeliness

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient expertise and can complete the review within the requested timeframe. If additional time is needed or the review cannot be completed, they should notify the editorial team as early as possible.

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts when using digital tools. Manuscript text, unpublished data, or review materials must not be uploaded to external generative AI services where doing so would breach confidentiality, data protection requirements, or journal policy. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, independence, and integrity of their assessments and must follow the journal's applicable policy on AI-assisted reviewing.

Suspected Misconduct

Concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential ethical violations should be reported confidentially to the Editor, with supporting explanations where possible. Reviewers should avoid making unsupported allegations or contacting authors directly about suspected misconduct.

8. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers may use the following checklist to ensure that their assessment is complete.

Thank You for Supporting Green Economics Research

Your expertise, independence, and constructive feedback are essential to strengthening the scientific quality, integrity, and impact of Green Economics Review. We sincerely appreciate your contribution to advancing knowledge and practice in Green Economics.