The peer-review process of Advances in Economics & Financial Studies (AEFS) is supported by scholars with expertise relevant to economics, finance, accounting, financial markets, management, business, governance, auditing, taxation, sustainability, digital transformation, economic development, and related interdisciplinary fields.

The reviewer pool is structured to reflect the current multidisciplinary AEFS Aims & Scope. Reviewers are selected for individual manuscripts according to substantive subject expertise, theoretical or conceptual perspective, methodological or review-methodological competence, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

AEFS accepts Research Papers and Literature Review Papers. Reviewer assignment therefore considers both the manuscript's disciplinary field and the expertise required to evaluate its research design or review design appropriately.

Listing on this page indicates participation in or eligibility for the journal's reviewer pool. It does not imply that every listed reviewer evaluates every manuscript submitted to AEFS.

The AEFS reviewer pool is maintained as a multidisciplinary scholarly network. A manuscript is matched with reviewers according to its principal disciplinary contribution, declared paper type, and methodological or review-methodological requirements rather than according to the journal title alone.

Manuscripts may contribute principally to economics, finance, accounting, management, business, marketing, human resource management, entrepreneurship, sustainability, governance, or another field recognized within the current AEFS Aims & Scope.

Where a manuscript concerns a specialist area or methodological approach not adequately represented by the standing reviewer pool, the responsible editor may invite an independent external reviewer with appropriate subject, methodological, or review-methodological expertise, subject to the journal's confidentiality, independence, and conflict-of-interest requirements.

AEFS selects reviewers according to:

• Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• Theoretical or conceptual expertise where relevant;
• Methodological or review-methodological competence appropriate to the research or review design;
• Relevant scholarly and research experience;
• Independence from the authors and manuscript;
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest;
• Ability to provide constructive and evidence-based evaluation;
• Availability to complete the review within the requested period;
• Previous review quality and reliability, where applicable.

Reviewer expertise should correspond to the manuscript's principal scholarly contribution, declared paper type, and methodology or review methodology.

A manuscript addressing management, human resource management, marketing, business, entrepreneurship, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, sustainability, or another recognized AEFS field is not required to contain an economics, finance, or accounting variable in order to receive appropriate specialist peer review.

For interdisciplinary manuscripts, editors seek reviewers capable of evaluating the principal disciplinary contribution and, where necessary, may combine reviewers from complementary fields or methodological backgrounds.

AEFS applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the research or review question, scholarly field, theoretical or conceptual foundation, and methodology or review methodology.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial responsibility remains with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, supplementary material, review reports, editorial correspondence, and other information obtained through peer review.

Reviewers must disclose relevant financial, institutional, academic, collaborative, professional, personal, or competitive conflicts of interest and decline assignments where independent evaluation cannot reasonably be maintained.

Confidential manuscripts or manuscript content must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, copyright, data protection, or proprietary information cannot be assured.