Manuscript Review Guidelines

JFED follows a practice of inviting 2–3 renowned experts in the relevant field to review each submitted manuscript. The following requirements apply to the review process:

1. Review Principles

1.1 Principle of Academic Rigour: Strictly examine the manuscript's adherence to academic standards, logical structure, and argumentation process. Ensure research conclusions align with academic norms in the finance and economics field, and that data and viewpoints demonstrate reliability and persuasiveness.

1.2 Objectivity and Impartiality: Implement a double-blind review system where author and institutional affiliations are concealed. Evaluations are based solely on manuscript quality, unaffected by author titles, identities, or geographic locations.

1.3 Innovation Value Principle: Prioritize manuscripts demonstrating innovation in financial theory, research methodology, or practical application, with particular emphasis on breakthrough studies addressing critical or challenging issues in the field.

1.4 Alignment Principle: Manuscript content must align with the journal's focus on macroeconomics, financial markets, industrial economics, fiscal taxation, and other core areas, offering both academic value and policy/practical guidance.

1.5 Ethical Compliance Principle: Strictly verify manuscript originality and copyright compliance, eliminate academic misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and ensure proper authorization for cited literature and chart materials.

2. Review Process

2.1 Initial Screening Stage (Completed within 1 week)

Conducted by dedicated editorial staff, focusing on:

Whether the manuscript topic aligns with the journal's scope and demonstrates clear relevance to the finance and economics field;
Compliance with journal formatting requirements (including title, abstract, keywords, main text structure, references, etc.);
Whether the similarity rate meets the standard (below 20%) with no obvious signs of plagiarism or patchwork;
Whether there are significant logical inconsistencies, erroneous viewpoints, or superficial content.

Initial review outcomes are categorized as: “Passed initial review, proceed to external review,” “Revise and resubmit,” or “Rejected.” Rejections must clearly state the primary reason.

2.2 External Review Stage (Completed within 30 calendar days)

The editorial office selects 2–3 experts (senior editorial board members or external reviewers) specializing in the manuscript's field of finance and economics to serve as reviewers. Manuscripts undergo “de-identification” (concealing author names, affiliations, funding projects, and other identifying information).
Reviewers must conduct a comprehensive assessment based on core evaluation criteria (see Section III), providing written feedback with explicit conclusions: “Accept as is,” “Accept with minor revisions,” “Resubmit after major revisions,” or “Reject.”
If two or more reviewers reach consistent conclusions, the external review outcome is finalized. If conclusions differ, an additional expert will be engaged, and the final decision is based on combined opinions.

2.3 Final Review Stage (Completed within 10 calendar days)

Conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor, based on initial review comments, external review feedback, and manuscript revisions (if applicable). Final decisions include: “Accepted,” “Accepted with Revisions,” or “Rejected.”

2.4 Revision and Re-review Stage

Authors must complete revisions within the specified timeframe (7 calendar days for minor revisions, 20 calendar days for major revisions) and submit a point-by-point revision statement.
Minor revisions proceed directly to acceptance; major revisions may require further review or one additional revision opportunity.

3. Core Review Criteria

3.1 Content Quality Standards

Topic Selection and Innovation: Focus on cutting-edge issues, policy hotspots, or industry pain points with originality.
Theoretical and Methodological Rigour: Solid theoretical foundations, reliable data sources, proper models, and credible results.
Conclusions and Value: Clear theoretical contributions and practical or policy implications.
Literature Review: Systematic synthesis of domestic and international research, avoiding superficial enumeration.

3.2 Format Standards

Structural Integrity: Complete sections including title, abstract, keywords, main text, conclusion, and references.
Titles must be concise and accurate.
Abstracts: 300–500 characters; 4–6 keywords required.
Author information must be complete and accurate.
References must follow GB/T 7714-2015 or APA (7th Edition).
Figures and tables must be clearly labeled and properly sourced.
Anonymous Review Requirement: Submit one anonymized manuscript copy.

3.3 Academic Ethics Standards

Manuscripts must be original and free from plagiarism, multiple submissions, or data falsification.
Authorship must follow the contribution principle.
Funding sources and copyright permissions must be properly disclosed.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality.

4. Review Conclusions

4.1 Accepted: Meets all standards with no substantive revisions.
4.2 Accepted with Minor Revisions: Minor issues only; acceptance follows revision.
4.3 Re-review after Major Revisions: Substantial improvements required before re-evaluation.
4.4 Rejection: Due to scope mismatch, misconduct, weak methodology, superficial analysis, or failure after revisions.

5. Supplementary Provisions

5.1 Authors may seek clarification but may not interfere with review outcomes.

5.2 Reviewers with conflicts of interest must declare recusal.

5.3 These rules take effect upon publication and are interpreted by the editorial office. Exceptional cases shall be reviewed by a special editorial committee.