Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Economic Sustainability Horizon (ESH)

1. Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of Economic Sustainability Horizon (ESH). Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on its originality, academic contribution, methodological rigor, relevance to economic sustainability, quality of evidence, clarity of analysis, and potential contribution to scholarly and policy discussions.

Reviewers should maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and should not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

2. Before Reviewing

Before accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise.

  • Whether they can complete the review within the expected timeframe, normally within two weeks.

  • Whether they have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, funding sources, or subject matter.

  • Whether they can provide an independent and objective assessment.

Reviewers should decline the assignment if they are unable to provide an impartial review.

3. Review Process

3.1 Title

Assess whether the title:

  • Clearly represents the main topic and focus of the manuscript.

  • Reflects the economic and/or sustainability dimension of the study.

  • Is concise, specific, and informative.

  • Avoids unnecessary terminology, abbreviations, or unsupported claims.

3.2 Abstract

Assess whether the abstract:

  • Clearly presents the research background or problem.

  • States the objective or research question.

  • Briefly describes the research approach or methodology.

  • Summarizes the main findings.

  • Clearly communicates the contribution or implications of the study.

  • Accurately reflects the content of the full manuscript.

3.3 Introduction

Assess whether the introduction:

  • Clearly establishes the economic or sustainability problem being addressed.

  • Provides an appropriate background and scholarly context.

  • Identifies a meaningful research gap.

  • Clearly states the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses where appropriate.

  • Explains the significance and potential contribution of the study.

  • Establishes a clear connection between the research problem and sustainability challenges.

4. Content Evaluation

4.1 Originality and Suitability

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • Presents original research, analysis, synthesis, or conceptual development.

  • Provides a meaningful contribution beyond existing literature.

  • Addresses a relevant and contemporary issue in economic sustainability.

  • Avoids substantial duplication of previously published work.

  • Demonstrates a clear rationale for the study.

For review and conceptual articles, reviewers should assess the depth, critical synthesis, conceptual clarity, and contribution of the manuscript rather than expecting conventional empirical research.

4.2 Scope and Relevance

Assess whether the manuscript is sufficiently aligned with the focus and scope of Economic Sustainability Horizon (ESH).

Relevant areas include:

  • Sustainable economic development and inclusive growth.

  • Economic resilience and long-term development.

  • ESG practices, performance, reporting, and governance.

  • SDGs, sustainable development financing, and SDG implementation.

  • Green economy, green growth, and circular economy.

  • Environmental economics and climate-related economic issues.

  • Carbon markets, carbon pricing, natural resources, and energy transition.

  • Sustainable finance, green finance, climate finance, and responsible investment.

  • Financial inclusion and sustainable development.

  • Economic transformation, digital transformation, and green innovation.

  • Sustainable business models and entrepreneurship.

  • Social entrepreneurship and circular business models.

  • Sustainable industrial transformation.

  • International trade, global value chains, and sustainability.

  • Foreign direct investment and sustainable development.

  • Regional and global economic transformation and governance.

The manuscript should demonstrate a meaningful connection between its subject matter and economic sustainability.

4.3 Economic and Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript makes a substantive contribution to economic and sustainability scholarship.

Consider whether it:

  • Advances economic theory, sustainability theory, or relevant conceptual understanding.

  • Provides new empirical evidence.

  • Develops or applies innovative analytical approaches.

  • Provides new insights into economic transformation and sustainability.

  • Challenges, confirms, or extends existing findings.

  • Offers meaningful implications for businesses, financial institutions, governments, or other relevant stakeholders.

5. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Assess whether the theoretical or conceptual foundation is appropriate and sufficiently developed.

Reviewers should consider:

  • Relevance and appropriateness of the theories or concepts used.

  • Clear explanation of relationships among key concepts or variables.

  • Appropriate engagement with sustainability and economic literature.

  • Logical development of hypotheses, propositions, or analytical arguments where applicable.

  • Consistency between the theoretical framework, research objectives, methodology, and conclusions.

  • Appropriate integration of interdisciplinary perspectives when relevant.

Theoretical discussions should go beyond merely listing previous studies and should demonstrate meaningful synthesis and critical engagement with the literature.

6. Methodology

The methodological approach should be appropriate to the research question and the type of manuscript submitted.

6.1 Research Design and Methods

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • The research design is clearly described.

  • The selected methods are appropriate for the research objectives.

  • The methodology is sufficiently rigorous and transparent.

  • Key assumptions are identified and justified.

  • The research process is sufficiently described to allow assessment or replication where applicable.

The journal welcomes quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, comparative, econometric, modeling, case-based, conceptual, review, and policy-oriented approaches when appropriately justified.

6.2 Data and Sources

For empirical studies, assess:

  • Appropriateness and reliability of data sources.

  • Adequacy of the sample or observation period.

  • Transparency regarding data collection and selection.

  • Relevance of variables, indicators, or measurements.

  • Treatment of missing, incomplete, or potentially biased data.

  • Appropriateness of sustainability, ESG, SDG, environmental, or economic indicators where used.

6.3 Economic and Statistical Analysis

Where quantitative or econometric methods are used, assess:

  • Appropriateness of the analytical technique.

  • Correct specification of models.

  • Adequacy of statistical procedures.

  • Treatment of assumptions, endogeneity, heterogeneity, or other relevant methodological concerns.

  • Robustness and sensitivity analysis where appropriate.

  • Appropriate interpretation of statistical significance and economic significance.

  • Whether the conclusions are supported by the analysis.

Reviewers should distinguish between statistical association and causal claims and assess whether causal interpretations are adequately justified.

6.4 Qualitative, Comparative, and Case-Based Research

For qualitative, comparative, or case-based studies, assess:

  • Appropriateness of case or material selection.

  • Transparency of data collection and analytical procedures.

  • Adequacy of evidence supporting interpretations.

  • Consistency between the analytical framework and findings.

  • Consideration of alternative explanations or perspectives where relevant.

7. Sustainability Measurement and Indicators

When sustainability is a central component of the manuscript, reviewers should assess:

  • Whether sustainability is clearly defined and operationalized.

  • Appropriateness of ESG, SDG, environmental, social, or economic indicators.

  • Validity and reliability of sustainability measurements.

  • Transparency regarding indicator construction or data sources.

  • Whether multidimensional sustainability issues are appropriately addressed.

  • Whether the analysis recognizes potential trade-offs between economic, environmental, and social objectives.

Claims regarding sustainability performance should be supported by appropriate evidence rather than broad or unsupported assertions.

8. ESG and Corporate Sustainability

For manuscripts addressing ESG or corporate sustainability, reviewers should consider:

  • Clarity and appropriateness of the ESG framework.

  • Reliability and transparency of ESG data or ratings.

  • Treatment of environmental, social, and governance dimensions.

  • Relationship between ESG practices and economic or financial outcomes.

  • Corporate governance and accountability.

  • Sustainability reporting and disclosure practices.

  • Potential greenwashing or selective disclosure issues where relevant.

  • Whether corporate sustainability claims are adequately supported by evidence.

9. Sustainable Finance and Investment

For manuscripts concerning sustainable finance, investment, or financial institutions, reviewers should assess:

  • Conceptual clarity regarding sustainable or responsible finance.

  • Appropriate treatment of green finance, climate finance, ESG investment, or related instruments.

  • Quality and reliability of financial and sustainability data.

  • Appropriate assessment of financial and sustainability outcomes.

  • Consideration of risk, return, and long-term sustainability where relevant.

  • Analysis of green bonds or other sustainable financial instruments where applicable.

  • Implications for financial institutions, investors, markets, and policymakers.

10. Green Economy, Climate, and Environmental Economics

For manuscripts addressing environmental or climate-related economic issues, assess whether:

  • Economic and environmental dimensions are appropriately integrated.

  • Climate-related economic claims are supported by credible evidence.

  • Environmental externalities and market failures are appropriately considered where relevant.

  • Carbon pricing, carbon markets, natural resources, or energy-transition mechanisms are analyzed appropriately.

  • Policy instruments are critically evaluated.

  • Trade-offs between economic development and environmental objectives are adequately addressed.

11. Economic Transformation, Innovation, and Business

For studies addressing economic transformation, innovation, entrepreneurship, or business sustainability, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the transformation process is clearly conceptualized.

  • Contribution of technology or innovation to sustainability.

  • Economic and sustainability implications of digital transformation.

  • Feasibility and relevance of sustainable business models.

  • Role of entrepreneurship and SMEs in sustainable transformation.

  • Potential barriers, risks, and enabling factors.

  • Long-term economic and sustainability implications.

12. Results and Findings

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Findings are presented clearly and logically.

  • Results directly address the research objectives or questions.

  • Empirical findings are adequately supported by the presented evidence.

  • Statistical or analytical results are accurately interpreted.

  • Tables and figures correspond to the text.

  • Results are distinguished from interpretation and speculation.

  • Unexpected or contradictory findings are appropriately acknowledged.

The manuscript should avoid overstating findings or presenting unsupported causal or policy claims.

13. Discussion and Critical Analysis

The discussion should demonstrate meaningful interpretation of the findings.

Reviewers should assess whether the authors:

  • Relate findings to relevant economic and sustainability literature.

  • Explain similarities and differences with previous research.

  • Provide appropriate theoretical interpretation.

  • Discuss economic, environmental, social, or institutional implications where relevant.

  • Address limitations of the study.

  • Avoid claims that extend beyond the evidence.

  • Demonstrate the broader significance of the findings.

A strong discussion should explain why the findings matter, rather than simply repeating the results.

14. Policy and Practical Implications

Because Economic Sustainability Horizon welcomes policy-oriented and applied research, reviewers should assess the quality of policy and practical implications.

Consider whether recommendations:

  • Follow logically from the findings.

  • Are realistic and appropriately contextualized.

  • Identify relevant stakeholders.

  • Consider implementation challenges and potential trade-offs.

  • Distinguish evidence-based recommendations from normative opinions.

  • Provide meaningful implications for governments, businesses, financial institutions, investors, or other relevant actors.

Policy recommendations should not be broader than what the evidence can reasonably support.

15. Comparative, Cross-Country, and Regional Analysis

For comparative or cross-country research, assess:

  • Whether country or regional selection is adequately justified.

  • Whether differences in economic, institutional, regulatory, and social contexts are considered.

  • Whether comparisons use sufficiently comparable data or indicators.

  • Whether contextual differences are appropriately interpreted.

  • Whether the study provides insights that extend beyond individual country cases.

Cross-country comparisons should avoid treating different institutional or economic contexts as directly equivalent without sufficient justification.

16. Tables and Figures

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Tables and figures are necessary and relevant.

  • Data are presented accurately.

  • Titles, labels, units, sources, and notes are clear.

  • Visualizations are appropriate for the data.

  • Tables and figures are discussed in the main text.

  • There is no unnecessary duplication between tables, figures, and narrative text.

17. Conclusion

The conclusion should:

  • Clearly summarize the principal findings.

  • Address the research objectives or questions.

  • Highlight the main scholarly contribution.

  • Explain relevant sustainability, economic, or policy implications.

  • Avoid introducing substantial new arguments or evidence.

  • Reflect the limitations and scope of the study where appropriate.

18. Writing Style and Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • Is clearly and logically organized.

  • Uses appropriate academic language.

  • Maintains consistent terminology.

  • Defines specialized economic, financial, ESG, or sustainability terminology where necessary.

  • Avoids unnecessary repetition.

  • Presents arguments clearly and concisely.

  • Uses appropriate headings and structure.

  • Contains grammatically and linguistically acceptable academic writing.

Authors should avoid excessive use of sustainability terminology without clear conceptual or empirical justification.

19. References

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  • References are relevant to the manuscript.

  • Important and recent scholarly literature has been considered.

  • Foundational literature is appropriately cited where necessary.

  • Citations support the claims being made.

  • References are accurately represented.

  • The literature review demonstrates sufficient engagement with international scholarship.

  • Excessive reliance on outdated, low-quality, or irrelevant sources is avoided.

For rapidly evolving areas such as ESG, climate finance, digital transformation, and sustainability policy, sufficiently current literature should be considered.

20. Ethical Issues

20.1 Research Ethics

Reviewers should identify potential ethical concerns involving research participants, organizations, communities, environmental data, or other relevant subjects where applicable.

20.2 Plagiarism

Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, substantial text similarity, duplicate publication, or inappropriate reuse of previously published material.

20.3 Data and Research Integrity

Reviewers should identify concerns involving:

  • Fabricated or manipulated data.

  • Misrepresentation of statistical or economic results.

  • Selective reporting of findings.

  • Unsupported sustainability or ESG claims.

  • Misrepresentation of data sources.

  • Inappropriate manipulation of indicators or models.

  • Conflicts between reported methodology and presented results.

20.4 Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

21. Final Review

Before submitting the review, reviewers should consider the following questions:

  1. Is the manuscript relevant to the scope of Economic Sustainability Horizon?

  2. Does it address a meaningful issue at the intersection of economics and sustainability?

  3. Is the research question or objective clearly formulated?

  4. Is the theoretical or conceptual foundation appropriate?

  5. Is the methodology suitable and sufficiently rigorous?

  6. Are the data and evidence reliable and adequately presented?

  7. Are the analysis and findings convincing?

  8. Does the manuscript make a meaningful scholarly contribution?

  9. Are sustainability, economic, environmental, and/or social claims adequately supported?

  10. Are policy and practical implications appropriate and evidence-based?

  11. Is the manuscript clearly written and properly referenced?

  12. Are there any ethical, integrity, plagiarism, or confidentiality concerns?

Reviewers should provide specific and constructive comments that help authors improve the manuscript. Comments should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the study and minor issues involving clarity, presentation, terminology, or formatting.

The final recommendation should reflect the overall academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to economic sustainability, and potential contribution of the manuscript to the field.