Peer Review Process

Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies (MJES) is committed to a fair, rigorous and confidential editorial and peer-review process. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit, relevance to the journal and compliance with the journal's requirements.

1. Editorial Screening

Every submission undergoes two selection stages before it is considered for external peer review.

 

The editorial office checks whether the submission is complete and complies with the Submission Guidelines proceed to external peer review. Authors must upload a separate title page containing all author details and an anonymised manuscript. Where a study involves human participants, evidence of ethical approval must also be provided, where applicable.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it:

• falls outside the aims and scope of the journal;
• does not comply with the Submission Guidelines;
• has serious language or presentation problems;
• does not demonstrate sufficient scholarly quality, originality or contribution; or
• is incomplete or contains information that compromises anonymous review.

 

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass both screening stages are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. MJES uses a double-blind review process: the reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Authors must therefore remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and other identifying information from the anonymised manuscript. All manuscripts, review reports and related correspondence are treated as confidential.

Authors may be asked to suggest potential reviewers. Suggested reviewers must have suitable expertise and no conflict of interest. Reviewer suggestions are advisory only; the journal retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

3. Editorial Decision

The journal normally waits until the required review reports have been received before an editorial decision is made. Reviewers advise the editor, but the final decision rests with the journal's editorial team. Possible decisions include:

• acceptance;
• minor revision;
• major revision; or
• rejection.

Where the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or make a decision after carefully considering the reports and the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are not determined by a simple numerical majority.

 

4. Revised Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by other qualified reviewers. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

 

5. Review Time and Status Updates

The time required for review varies according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript and whether further review rounds are needed. The double-blind external review stage normally requires a minimum of four months because the journal waits for the required referee reports before reaching a decision. Screening, revision and production time are additional.

Authors may view available status updates through the online journal system. The Handling Editor will contact the corresponding author when an editorial decision has been reached.

 

6. After Acceptance

Before publication, accepted manuscripts must comply fully with the journal's style and reference requirements and may undergo proofreading, copyediting and typesetting. Authors are responsible for checking the proofs carefully and responding to editorial queries within the specified deadline. Acceptance is subject to completion of all required publication documents and procedures.