Peer Review Policy

Digitomics: Journal of Digital Economics and Innovations follows double-blind peer review policy. The paper is sent to many reviewers (the experts in the respective field) to review the paper in light of the journal's guidelines and features of a quality research paper. For papers that require changes, the same reviewers will be used to ensure that the quality of the revised paper is acceptable.

Digitomics: Journal of Digital Economics and Innovations maintains the standards of peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process.

All research articles published in Digitomics: Journal of Digital Economics and Innovations undergo full peer review, key characteristics of which are listed below:

• All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts.
• All publication decisions are made by the journals’ Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the reviews provided
• Members of the international Editorial Boards lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editors-in-Chief generally and to assist decision making on specific submissions
• Managing  Editors and  Editorial Assistants provide the administrative support that allows the journal to maintain the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to authors, reviewers, and editors alike.
• The journal additionally benefits through the manuscript referral process from the high-quality peer review conducted by established journals.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of Digitomics: Journal of Digital Economics and Innovations will decide promptly whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide further review is needed.

Peer review of novel submissions:

Articles submitted directly to Digitomics: Journal of Digital Economics and Innovations will be fully peer-reviewed by at least two appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board will then decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.
Editors will decide whether each submission reports well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper. Assessments of priority will not be a factor in decision-making, but all papers must make an incremental or novel addition to the literature.