Introduction

Blind peer review is an essential part of the manuscript evaluation process. It helps the editor reach an informed decision on a submission and helps authors improve their manuscripts.

Before accepting a request to serve as a referee for a submission, reviewers should make sure that:

• the article is within their area of expertise;
• they can dedicate sufficient time to perform a proper review of the submission.

Ethical issues

Several ethical issues should be considered during the review process:

• Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their impartiality. If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the editor before proceeding. MF is guided in this respect by recognized recommendations, including those of WAME and ICMJE (see WAME Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals and ICMJE Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process).
• Manuscripts are confidential materials provided to reviewers solely for critical assessment. Reviewers must keep the manuscript and all details of the review process confidential.
• Reviewers must not use information obtained during peer review for their own advantage, for the advantage of another person or organization, or to disadvantage or discredit others. MF is guided in this respect by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Review reports should be objective, honest, and respectful. Referees should not be influenced by religious, cultural, or political views, by the origin of the manuscript or the authors, or by the authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics.

Review reports

In evaluating an article, reviewers should concentrate on its originality, contribution to the field, technical soundness, quality of presentation, clarity, and depth of research.

The reviewer’s report should be objective, clear, accurate, and constructive. Comments should be supported by specific arguments and evidence. Referees should avoid hostile, derogatory, or accusatory language.

While reviewers may suggest necessary revisions and corrections, they should not rewrite the paper.

Reviewer comments are not published with articles.

Report structure

The submitted manuscript should be evaluated considering its major aspects:

• Suitability for Modern Finance. Overall, is the paper a valuable contribution to the journal Modern Finance? Does the paper consider an issue important to the field of finance? Is the paper's idea original? Does it offer an important contribution to the field? Is the study relevant to an international audience? Is the paper's content appropriate and up to date?
• Content evaluation. Does the paper's title accurately reflect the content and the purpose of the article? Does the abstract contain all the essential elements, including the justification of the topic, the aim of the study, the methodology, and the main results and conclusions? Is the abstract concise and relevant? Is the methodology clearly presented? Does the paper achieve its stated goal? Is the paper relevant to practice? How valuable are its theoretical and empirical contributions? Is the article's message clear?
• Text evaluation. Is the paper technically well-organized? Does it include the proper elements, such as abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusions, and references? Does the article properly use visuals, such as tables, graphs, and diagrams? Is the paper free from grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors? Is the literature review sufficiently broad? Are the references up to date?

Recommendation

The review should include a clear recommendation regarding the paper. The recommendation should fall within one of the following categories:

• Accept without revision
• Reject
• Revise – either major or minor.

If the reviewer recommends revision or rejection, they should provide the author with a clear and well-supported explanation of their view.

Timeliness

Reviewers should accept a manuscript for evaluation only if they have sufficient time to prepare a careful review. Referees should submit their reports in a timely manner.