Review process

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial screening to assess compliance with basic formal requirements and adherence to the journal’s ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these ethical standards will be rejected before the peer review phase. Manuscripts that are improperly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.

Following these preliminary checks, the handling editor, who may be the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or, in case of a conflict of interest, a member of the editorial board, decides whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets minimum scholarly standards. At this stage, the significance or potential impact of the manuscript is not evaluated. The Editor-in-Chief reviews all rejection decisions made during this phase.

Submissions by Editorial Board Members

Members of the editorial board may submit manuscripts to the journal, but only under exceptional circumstances, particularly when the topic limits the number of suitable journals for publication. In such cases, the editorial board ensures that the double-blind peer review process remains fully transparent, rigorous, and unbiased. This is achieved through the careful selection of editors and reviewers, and by ensuring that reviewers do not become aware of the author’s identity.

Reviewer Suggestions

Authors may suggest potential reviewers. Before contacting any suggested reviewers, the editorial team will verify no conflicts of interest. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation. Authors may also indicate individuals who do not wish to review their manuscript. The editorial office will honor these requests as long as they do not compromise the objective and thorough assessment of the manuscript.

Expert Review

Once a manuscript has passed the initial checks, the handling editor invites at least three independent experts to review the submission. These experts may include members of the journal’s editorial board.

The Tér – Gazdaság – Ember / Journal of Region, Economy and Society employs a double-blind peer review process. Reviews are kept confidential and may only be disclosed with the express consent of the reviewer. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editor, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

Reviewers proposed by authors may be considered, but are subject to a strict conflict-of-interest review. Reviewers must not have co-authored publications with the authors within the last five years, nor may they be affiliated with the same institution.

Editorial Decision and Revision Process

All articles, reviews, and communications published in the Tér – Gazdaság – Ember / Journal of Region, Economy and Society undergo peer review and receive at least two reviews. The editor communicates one of the following decisions to the authors:

• Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted in its current form.
  
  
• Acceptance with minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted in principle, with minor corrections pending based on reviewer comments. Authors are given one week to submit the revised version.
  
  
• Resubmission after major revisions: Acceptance is contingent upon significant modifications. Authors must respond to each reviewer's comment point-by-point and provide justifications if any suggestion cannot be implemented. Only one round of major revisions is generally permitted. Authors are expected to submit the revised manuscript within two weeks, after which it will be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
  
  
• Rejection with invitation to resubmit: Manuscripts that require additional research to support their conclusions will be rejected, but authors are encouraged to resubmit once the necessary work has been completed.
  
  
• Rejection: Manuscripts with fundamental flaws or lacking originality will be rejected without an invitation to resubmit.
  
  

All reviewer comments must be addressed individually and thoroughly. If authors disagree with any feedback, they must provide clear and well-reasoned explanations.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the editorial office via email. Appeals must include a detailed justification and a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and/or editor’s comments. The Editor-in-Chief will forward the manuscript and related documents (including the identities of the reviewers) to a member of the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief will appoint an external expert if no suitable board member is available.

The board member or expert will provide an advisory opinion and may recommend acceptance, additional review, or upholding the original decision. Rejection decisions made at this stage are final and cannot be appealed.