Initial Checks

The Editor-in-Chief checks each submission for compliance with the journal's profile and technical accuracy. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethics policy or do not meet the journal's standards will be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that are not adequately prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. After the initial assessment, the submission may be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the members of the Editorial Board. Following these steps, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor will determine whether the paper fits the journal's scope and is scientifically sound. The Editor-in-Chief always approves rejections at this stage.

Peer Review

All research content in Modern Finance undergoes rigorous peer review by external experts in the subject area. The process aligns with COPE standards and national guidelines for best practices in scientific review procedures. MF employs a double-blind model, ensuring that both author and reviewer identities remain confidential to maintain objectivity. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor initiates the review by selecting at least two independent reviewers who are unaffiliated with the authors' institution.

To maintain ethical standards, reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest, defined as direct personal relationships (such as up to second-degree kinship, legal ties, or marital relationships), recent collaborations within the last two years, or professional supervisory relationships with the authors. Feedback from reviewers is kept strictly confidential and disclosed only with express permission, with an annual acknowledgment of all contributing reviewers published on the journal’s website.

The reviewers are required to:

• Hold at least a doctoral degree.
• Have recent, relevant publications in the manuscript’s subject area.
• Possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript's quality.
• Maintain high standards of professionalism, ethics, and scientific reputation.
• Should not be a member of the journal’s editorial or scientific advisory board.

The described peer review process typically takes 4-8 weeks, with authors notified of any delays and given the option to withdraw their manuscript in cases of extended delays.

Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Following the peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate one of the four potential decisions to the authors:

• Accept. The paper can send to copyediting and production without further changes.
• Minor revision. Only small revisions are required, such as text edits or correction of minor mistakes. Authors are expected to implement these recommended changes.
• Major revision. The article needs substantial revisions, and acceptance will depend on the quality of the revisions. Typically, only two rounds of major revisions are permitted. Authors are asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, with a default revision period of 60 days. The written review includes a clear evaluation of the manuscript’s contributions and quality, and authors are expected to address all reviewer feedback. Depending on the editor’s decision, the editor may re-evaluate the revised version or return it to the reviewers to confirm that their suggestions have been adequately addressed.
• Reject. The article makes no significant original contribution or has serious errors and flaws.

The final decision on whether the manuscript is rejected, revised, or accepted is made by Editor-in-Chief. In cases where opinions vary, an additional review may be requested. The author is informed about each decision (rejection, minor revision, major revision, or acceptance) on an ongoing basis via e-mail.

Exceptions to Peer Review

Editorials and opinion pieces are evaluated by the editorial team and are not subjected to external peer review.

Appeals Concerning Editorial Decisions

Modern Finance provides a structured appeals process to ensure fairness in editorial decisions. Authors may appeal an editorial decision based on specific grounds, such as perceived errors in the review process or overlooked evidence.

• Submitting an Appeal: Authors should submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, detailing the reasons and relevant supporting information.
• Initial Review: The Editor-in-Chief will acknowledge the appeal within seven days and assess its eligibility for further review.
• Independent Review: If the appeal qualifies, the Editor-in-Chief may consult additional editors or independent experts to provide an objective assessment.
• Final Decision: A final decision on the appeal will be communicated within 60 days. If unresolved, further escalation may be requested in line with COPE guidelines.

This process ensures transparency and provides authors with a formal opportunity to appeal editorial decisions.

Copyediting, Production, and Publication

The accepted papers will undergo copyediting, final corrections, pagination, and publication on the MF website. Each published article includes the submission, acceptance, and publication dates.