Peer Review Process
Wine and Economics Policy is a peer reviewed open access journal with a rigorous editorial screening and assessment process made up of several stages.
The editors make decisions on submissions based on scientific rigor, regardless of novelty.
The journal staff and in-house editorial team perform an initial quality check to identify potential issues such as:
- Competing interests
- Compliance with editorial policies and ethical standards
- Financial disclosures
- Data availability
Submissions may be returned to authors for changes or clarifications at this stage.
After completing internal checks, each new submission is assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant expertise. The editor reviews the manuscript against our publication criteria and determines whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. The handling Academic Editor is usually a member of the Wine and Economics Policy Editorial Board, but occasionally a Guest Editor is invited to serve instead.
Peer Review Process
During the submission process you’ll be asked to indicate any specific editors or reviewers who should not review your manuscript. We will respect your request so long as it does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.
The handling editor selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews, and invites them to provide feedback on the manuscript. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 20 days to submit their review. The journal office will follow up with late reviewers and keep you informed if there are any delays.
Wine and Economics Policy uses single-anonymized peer review. Reviewers remain anonymous unless they choose to identify themselves by signing their name to their review in our submission system.
The handling Editor makes the final decision on each manuscript. The time to render a first decision averages about 50 days, but times vary depending on how long it takes for the editor to receive and assess reviews.
The editor considers reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision. The following decision types are available:
Revisions Required: it requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editor.
Resubmit for Review: it requires major changes and another round of peer review.
Resubmit Elsewhere: it doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal.
Decline Submission: it has too many weakness to ever be accepted.
Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in a formal letter, along with reviewer feedback and any other requirements from the journal office.
If the editor feels that your manuscript has the potential to be published, but requires changes, you’ll be invited to revise it. You’ll have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript for both a major or a minor revision. In most cases, the revised manuscript is re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. The editor may make a new decision based on their own assessment of the revised manuscript and your response to reviewers, or request additional input from external peer reviewers.