Dear Guest! If you find an error on the page or you have any technical question please call the customer service center. Phone number is 06-80-203-776. The Central Bank of Hungary.

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers


Dear Sir / Madam,

A request for peer reviewing an academic manuscript represents the recognition of the academic performance of the peer reviewer. Journals owe much of their reputation to their peer reviewers. Therefore it is important to make sure that only manuscripts that are closely related to their own field of expertise are peer-reviewed by them.The journal Financial and Economic Review will only accept manuscripts based on their author’s own research and presenting new and novel results or methods or novel approach to a problem. Reviews and descriptions of the literature do not constitute a manuscript; they shall serve as no more than its theoretical background. The literature used in a manuscript shall be relevant and the latest literature shall also be included. The selected method of research shall match the objective laid down. The use of applied research methods to support the issue under consideration is recommended, as well as the use of current data where possible. The manuscript shall have a clear, logical and consistent structure.

The task of the Peer Reviewers is – among other things – to highlight

  • any technical and logical errors,
  • any missing literature that is highly relevant to the topic in question,
  • any lack of consistency between the title, content and conclusions of the paper and between the data and figures and the text,
  • any inappropriateness of the train of thought,
  • any lack of adequate argumentation and of sound support for the proposals.

In writing a peer review, the following points shall be taken into account Plagiarism. A study or essay that contains sections fully or partly borrowed from other works without proper referencing is considered as plagiarism. Suspected plagiarism shall be immediately reported to the editor-in-charge and the editor.

Confidentiality. Every manuscript sent out for peer review shall be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts shall not be disclosed to third parties without the prior approval of the editor-in-charge. The conclusions and results of the manuscript may be used prior to the peer review only with the author’s prior written consent. The data and research results accessed during the peer review process classify as confidential data and must not be used by the peer reviewers in their own research. If the peer reviewer requires the involvement of a third party in the peer review process, the editor-in-charge shall be notified in advance.

The peer reviewer will remain anonymous throughout the whole process. The author must not be made aware of the identity of the peer reviewer, and therefore name, position, easily identifiable office and earlier academic achievements shall not be indicated in peer reviews. The peer reviewer must never contact the author directly in any case.

Originality. The peer reviewer shall assess whether the manuscript contains sufficiently new/novel results/approach and whether it is suitable for publication. What degree of academic contribution does it represent? Does it meet the requirements demanded by the journal? Is the research question significant and sufficiently scientific?


Layout and format. Our authors must comply with the Guidelines for Authors, which concern mostly the writing of the manuscript. The expected structure of studies is: Introduction/Literature review, Methodology, Results, Discussion/Conclusion (IMRaD). The structure of essays is less strict. If a study fails to satisfy these requirements, the peer review shall highlight this fact.

Title. Does it capture the subject matter discussed in the manuscript clearly and well?

Abstract. Does it represent the contents/message of the manuscript?

Introduction. It shall be decided whether the author is sufficiently clear in presenting specifically what he/she wishes to achieve with his/her manuscript and whether he/she identifies accurately the problem he/she wishes to explore. Essentially, the introductory section shall review the relevant Hungarian and international literature, locating the study/essay within a well-defined context. Here, the author shall briefly review the results of other authors and indicate whether he/she wishes to expand the theoretical framework or refute it. This section contains a description of the research to be carried out, the hypotheses and the general research methodologies and approaches.

Graphic representations and emphases. Figures and tables shall be sufficiently informative for the readers and shall match the main argument of the manuscript. Do the statistical data visualisation methods employed represent the data used well? Are the figures and tables, and the data visualisation methods used in them, consistent?

Methodology. Does the author present clearly how he/she arrived at the data? Is the methodology selected suitable to answer the research question? Are there sufficient quantities of data to duplicate the research? If the method is new, is it presented in a consistent and exhaustive manner? Was the sample selected properly?

Results. In this section, the author shall describe the results and conclusions he/she arrived at through his/her research. It shall be decided whether the analysis was conducted to the appropriate academic standard. Is the statistical approach satisfactory? Importantly, this is not the section where the results shall be interpreted.

Conclusion and Discussion. The assertions in this section are predicated on the results. It is important for the assertions to be well-reasoned. Does the author indicate how the results relate to the expectations and to earlier research? Does the manuscript contradict or, rather, support the earlier theoretical approach? Is there mention of how the research will contribute to academic progress in the given field?

Language and style. If the manuscript contains a multitude of spelling and grammatical errors, these do not have to be corrected. However, the editor-in-charge shall be notified about it.

Earlier research. If a manuscript relies on earlier research, it will be important to decide whether it represents the antecedents properly. Were certain important works omitted? Are the references appropriate?

In the light of the above, we ask our peer reviewers to underline the relevant text, if applicable, and then add their suggestions for changes to complete their peer review!

Peer Review

(to review manuscripts submitted to the Financial and Economic Review)

1. The title of the manuscript:

2. Summary opinion about the manuscript:

3. Conclusion – (the peer reviewer’s decision is underlined):

a) Studies:

i. I recommend it for publication – without any changes

ii. Can be published – with minor corrections and additions (see Section 4 for the peer reviewer’s suggestions)

iii. Fundamental corrections and additions are needed (see Section 4 for the peer reviewer’s expectations)

 b) Essays: (A writing that discusses the examined issue in an understandable, readable form, and which typically presents the problem either in general terms or focuses on its main features. The essay contains the author's opinion and point of view expounded in a more pivotal way, it is more subjective, putting less emphasis on mathematical modeling of the problem, primary data collection, data analysis based on deeper statistical / mathematical / econometric / time series analysis methods, and occasionally the review of the literature on the topic is also focused, not exhaustive.)

i. I recommend it for publication – without any changes

ii. Can be published – with minor corrections and additions (see Section 4 for the peer reviewer’s suggestions)

iii. Fundamental corrections and additions are needed (see Section 4 for the peer reviewer’s expectations)

c) I do not recommend publishing this manuscript in the Financial and Economic Review

4. The peer reviewer’s suggestions for corrections and additions in the manuscript:

a) suggestions for corrections and additions in the manuscript:

b) the peer reviewer’s expectations for significantly revising the manuscript and supplementing with missing sections:

c) formal corrections and additions: language use, clarifications in charts, diagrams and tables, corrections in bibliography

The novelty and importance of the subject matter:

Outstanding                                                                 Average                                                                       Modest

The practical relevance of the results:

Outstanding                                                                 Average                                                                       Modest

The length of the manuscript in relation to its academic content:

Suitable                                                                      Too short                                                                      Too long

The editing and the logical structure of the manuscript:

Outstanding                                                                 Acceptable                                                                  Confused

Evaluation of the title in relation to the content of the manuscript:

Clear and meaningful                                       Too long and detailed                                  Too generic, not meaningful

The formulation of the objective(s):

Clear and logical                                                     Partly clear                                                                       Not clear

The quality of the methodology:

Outstanding                                                           Satisfactory                                                                           Weak

The quality of the statistical processing of data:

Outstanding                                                           Satisfactory                                                                           Weak

The communication of the results:

Clear                                                                        Partly clear                                                   Incoherent, not clear

Evaluation of the conclusions in relation to the objectives and the results:

Sound                                                                   Partly supported                                                              Unfounded


Self-explanatory                                                                                                                             Not self-explanatory

Sufficient in number                                                  Too few                                                                          Too many

Charts and images:

Self-explanatory                                                                                                                             Not self-explanatory

Sufficient in number                                                  Too few                                                                          Too many

References to literature:

Satisfactory                                                                                                                                           Not satisfactory

The grammatical correctness of the text of the manuscript:

Outstanding                                                                 Satisfactory                                                                      Weak


Editors of the Financial and Economic Review
Budapest, 04.04.2023

Ahogy majdnem minden honlappal rendelkező cég, az MNB is használ sütiket a weboldalain.Elfogadom

Ismerje meg a teljes GDPR-t. Elolvashatja nálunk az Adatvédelmi rendelet teljes szövegét magyarul.Elolvasom