For Reviewers

Virtual Economics relies on the expertise of independent reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, integrity and credibility of the journal. Peer review constitutes a professional scholarly responsibility, and reviewers are expected to act in accordance with recognised standards of academic ethics and good editorial practice.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers confirm that they possess appropriate subject expertise and are able to provide an objective and timely evaluation. If a reviewer does not feel sufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript, the invitation should be declined promptly so that an alternative expert may be invited.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute or discuss any part of the manuscript with third parties without prior permission from the editorial office. Unpublished material must not be used for personal research, teaching, grant preparation or any other purpose prior to publication.

Reviewers must decline the review if any circumstance exists that could affect impartiality. Conflicts of interest may arise from professional collaboration, institutional affiliation, supervisory relationships, personal connections, financial interests or direct academic competition with the authors. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after acceptance of the invitation, the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial office. The procedures applied by the journal in such situations are described in the Editorial Independence & Conflict of Interest Policy.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, respectfully and constructively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers are expected to provide reasoned scholarly comments supported, where relevant, by appropriate references. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated data or other ethical concerns, this information must be communicated confidentially to the editor in accordance with the Publication Ethics policy.

Reviewers are normally expected to submit their report within 12 weeks of accepting the invitation. If a reviewer is unable to meet this timeframe, the editorial office should be informed as early as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

To ensure consistency and fairness in the evaluation process, reviewers are requested to prepare their assessment using the journal’s structured review form available here: Reviewer Report Form. Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments intended to assist the authors in improving the manuscript. The final editorial decision is taken by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor on the basis of the peer review reports as described in the Peer Review Process.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of them into artificial intelligence systems or automated tools that store, reuse or learn from submitted content. The use of artificial intelligence for drafting peer review reports is not permitted. Further information is provided in the Artificial Intelligence Policy.

The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Virtual Economics may publish an annual acknowledgement of reviewers who have contributed to the peer review process.

Virtual Economics supports reviewer recognition through the Clarivate Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons). Reviewers may choose to have their completed reviews verified and recorded in their Clarivate profile by submitting a recognition request via their Clarivate account. The request is transmitted to the journal through the Clarivate system, after which the editorial office confirms that the review was completed for the journal and validates it in the system. Only the fact that a review was performed is confirmed; the content of the review and the identity of the authors remain confidential. The journal does not disclose manuscript details, reviewer reports, or editorial decisions as part of this process. Participation in reviewer recognition is entirely voluntary and has no influence on editorial decisions.