Manuscripts must be submitted through the official EKOMBIS REVIEW Online Journal System (OJS). Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript file and submission metadata are complete and consistent with the journal's Author Guidelines.

Authors must also ensure that the manuscript is original, has not been formally published in substantially the same form, and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

Every submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor before external peer review.

The initial screening generally assesses:

• relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• completeness of the manuscript and OJS metadata;
• basic methodological adequacy;
• compliance with Author Guidelines and the current article template;
• similarity, plagiarism, duplicate-publication, or other integrity concerns;
• ethical approval, informed consent, or ethical declarations where applicable; and
• overall readiness for external scholarly review.

EKOMBIS REVIEW applies a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of reviewer identities during the review process.

Authors must remove identifying information from the anonymous manuscript file where required by the OJS workflow, while complete author information must remain available in the OJS metadata for editorial administration.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area and/or research methodology.

A third or additional reviewer may be invited when:

• reviewer recommendations materially conflict;
• additional methodological or disciplinary expertise is required;
• an ethical, statistical, or technical concern requires specialist assessment; or
• the editor considers an additional independent opinion necessary.

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include recent collaboration, institutional relationships, supervisory relationships, financial interests, close personal relationships, direct academic competition, or other relevant connections with the authors or organizations involved.

A reviewer who identifies a relevant conflict of interest should notify the editor and decline the review assignment.

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research information are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
• contact the authors directly regarding the review without editorial permission;
• use unpublished data or ideas for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage;
• disclose confidential editorial information; or
• delegate the review to another person without permission from the editor.

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript meets relevant scholarly and publication standards.

Review reports should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to support editorial decision-making.

• Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or abusive comments are not acceptable.
• Reviewers should clearly explain major concerns and provide scholarly justification.
• Suggestions for additional references should be relevant to improving the manuscript and must not be used primarily to increase citations to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, ethical violations, or other integrity concerns.
• Reviewers are not responsible for routine copyediting or language correction, although they may identify language problems that materially affect scientific understanding.

If a reviewer identifies a possible research-integrity or publication-ethics problem, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not independently contact authors, institutions, employers, ethics committees, or third parties to investigate a concern unless specifically authorized by the journal.

When revision is requested, authors should revise the manuscript carefully and provide a point-by-point response to editor and reviewer comments.

Authors may respectfully disagree with a reviewer recommendation when supported by clear scholarly justification. The editor evaluates whether the response and revision adequately address the issues raised.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when the editor considers further assessment necessary.

Reviewers provide recommendations; they do not make the final publication decision.

Based on reviewer reports, the author's response, journal policies, research-integrity considerations, and editorial judgement, the responsible editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Authors who believe that a significant factual, scholarly, or procedural error affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal according to the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal must provide a clear scholarly or procedural basis and does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

EKOMBIS REVIEW recognizes the scholarly contribution made by peer reviewers. Reviewer names may be listed on the journal's Peer Reviewers / Mitra Bestari page where appropriate, without disclosing which manuscripts they reviewed.

Reviewer service is voluntary scholarly service and does not confer authority over the final editorial decision.

Scholars interested in serving as reviewers may contact the editorial office. Appointment as a reviewer is subject to editorial assessment of academic qualifications, subject expertise, publication record, integrity, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.