Editorial Process

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations follows a structured, transparent, and academically independent editorial process designed to support scholarly quality, research integrity, fair peer review, and responsible publication. Every submitted manuscript is evaluated according to its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical compliance, evidentiary quality, and potential contribution to circular economy research and innovation.

The journal considers research across circular production and consumption systems, resource efficiency, waste prevention, recycling and recovery, sustainable materials, industrial ecology, circular business models, sustainable supply chains, life-cycle approaches, regenerative systems, policy, governance, technological innovation, and related interdisciplinary fields. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations and are kept independent of commercial or financial influence.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s designated online submission system in accordance with the applicable Author Guidelines and manuscript-preparation requirements.

Before submission, authors should ensure that the manuscript is complete, original, appropriately structured, and suitable for the journal’s subject coverage. All listed authors should have approved the submitted version and agreed to their authorship responsibilities.

Where applicable, submissions should include relevant declarations concerning authorship, funding, conflicts of interest, research ethics, informed consent, data availability, use of artificial intelligence tools, and permissions for third-party material.

Submission of a manuscript does not imply acceptance for peer review or publication.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

Following submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial administrative assessment to determine whether it satisfies essential submission requirements.

This assessment may include verification of:

  • manuscript completeness;

  • author and affiliation information;

  • corresponding-author details;

  • abstract and keywords;

  • tables, figures, and supplementary materials;

  • required declarations;

  • reference presentation;

  • ethical information where applicable; and

  • compliance with basic journal formatting requirements.

Incomplete submissions or manuscripts requiring substantial technical correction may be returned to the corresponding author before formal editorial evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that satisfy basic submission requirements proceed to an initial academic assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately assigned editor.

The editor considers whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s aims and scope;

  • addresses a relevant scholarly problem;

  • presents an identifiable research or conceptual contribution;

  • demonstrates appropriate methodological or analytical quality;

  • is sufficiently developed for independent peer review;

  • meets basic standards of academic presentation; and

  • does not contain evident ethical or research-integrity concerns.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains fundamental methodological deficiencies, or is otherwise unsuitable for further evaluation.

4. Scope Assessment for Circular Economy Research

Because the journal focuses on circular economy innovation, manuscripts should demonstrate a substantive connection with circularity rather than merely using sustainability terminology in a general manner.

Relevant contributions may address areas such as resource circulation, material efficiency, product life extension, waste prevention, reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling, recovery systems, circular production, sustainable consumption, industrial symbiosis, circular supply chains, circular business models, life-cycle analysis, regenerative approaches, policy innovation, or enabling technologies.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts are welcome where the circular economy dimension is clearly defined and academically significant.

5. Originality and Research-Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be assessed for textual similarity and other indicators of potential publication-integrity concerns.

Similarity-detection software may be used as an editorial support mechanism; however, similarity percentages are not interpreted automatically. Editors consider the source, extent, context, and nature of any overlap.

Potential concerns may include:

  • plagiarism;

  • inappropriate textual reuse;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • fabricated or falsified information;

  • manipulated data;

  • inappropriate citation practices;

  • authorship irregularities;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest; or

  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Where concerns arise, authors may be asked to provide clarification or supporting documentation before editorial processing continues.

6. Ethical and Research Compliance Assessment

Manuscripts involving human participants, surveys, interviews, confidential organizational information, sensitive environmental data, proprietary industrial information, or other ethically regulated research should comply with applicable institutional, professional, and legal requirements.

Where relevant, authors should report:

  • ethics approval;

  • informed consent;

  • participant confidentiality measures;

  • organizational permissions;

  • responsible data-management procedures; and

  • other safeguards relevant to the study.

Research involving industrial, supply-chain, environmental, or corporate datasets should accurately describe the origin, authorization, and limitations of the information used.

7. Assignment to an Editor

A manuscript considered suitable for further evaluation is assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise.

The handling editor oversees the academic evaluation of the manuscript and may be responsible for:

  • identifying qualified reviewers;

  • assessing reviewer independence;

  • managing peer-review communication;

  • evaluating revision responses;

  • resolving conflicting reviewer recommendations; and

  • making or recommending an editorial decision.

Editors should not manage manuscripts where a relevant conflict of interest could compromise independent judgment.

8. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are evaluated by qualified independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewer selection may take into account:

  • subject specialization;

  • methodological expertise;

  • scholarly experience;

  • independence from the authors;

  • institutional relationships;

  • absence of significant conflicts of interest; and

  • ability to provide a timely and constructive evaluation.

The journal retains full editorial responsibility for reviewer selection.

9. Double-Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations follows a double-blind peer-review process.

Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors during the review process.

Authors should prepare the manuscript in a manner that minimizes unnecessary disclosure of identifying information.

Manuscripts proceeding to external evaluation are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

10. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to provide objective, evidence-based, confidential, and constructive assessments.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may consider:

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • relevance to circular economy research;

  • appropriateness of research objectives;

  • adequacy of literature engagement;

  • methodological rigor;

  • validity of data and analysis;

  • statistical or computational appropriateness;

  • interpretation of results;

  • environmental and sustainability relevance;

  • consistency between evidence and conclusions;

  • research transparency;

  • ethical considerations;

  • clarity of presentation; and

  • limitations of the study.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional recommendations.

11. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Editors and reviewers should not disclose manuscript contents, unpublished findings, author information, review reports, or editorial correspondence to unauthorized persons.

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research, commercial purposes, competitive advantage, or other unauthorized activities.

Confidentiality obligations continue to apply to manuscripts that are rejected or withdrawn.

12. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Relevant conflicts may include:

  • recent collaboration with the authors;

  • direct institutional relationships;

  • financial interests;

  • professional competition;

  • personal relationships; or

  • other circumstances that could compromise independent evaluation.

Reviewers should decline assignments where an appropriate impartial review cannot reasonably be provided.

13. Editorial Decision

After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, applicable declarations, and relevant ethical or methodological issues, the responsible editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not independently determine the final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or another formally authorized editor retains responsibility for final editorial decisions.

14. Minor Revision

A minor revision decision may be issued where the manuscript is considered fundamentally sound but requires limited clarification, presentation improvement, reference correction, additional explanation, or other relatively focused changes.

Authors should respond carefully to each reviewer and editor comment and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period where applicable.

Minor revision does not constitute final acceptance.

15. Major Revision

A major revision decision may be issued where substantial improvement is required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major revisions may involve:

  • methodological clarification;

  • additional analysis;

  • restructuring of the manuscript;

  • improved interpretation;

  • expanded engagement with relevant literature;

  • revision of overstated conclusions;

  • clarification of data sources;

  • stronger discussion of limitations; or

  • resolution of other significant reviewer concerns.

Revised manuscripts may undergo an additional round of external peer review.

16. Author Response to Review

Authors submitting a revised manuscript should provide a clear response explaining how reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they may provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Responses should remain professional and should focus on the academic substance of the review.

The editor evaluates both the revised manuscript and the adequacy of the author’s responses.

17. Additional Review

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, unresolved technical questions remain, or additional specialist expertise is required, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

Additional review is used to strengthen editorial decision-making rather than to obtain a predetermined recommendation.

The final decision remains an editorial responsibility.

18. Final Editorial Evaluation

Before acceptance, the responsible editor conducts a final evaluation to determine whether the manuscript has satisfactorily addressed substantive reviewer and editorial concerns.

The editor may also verify:

  • authorship information;

  • affiliations;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • funding disclosures;

  • ethical statements;

  • data-availability information;

  • reference accuracy;

  • tables and figures;

  • supplementary material; and

  • other information relevant to the reliability of the publication record.

Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript is considered suitable for publication.

19. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance, research integrity, and suitability for the journal.

Decisions are not determined by an author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, geographic location, professional status, or financial circumstances.

Financial arrangements, publication charges, sponsorship, advertising, or other commercial matters should not influence the evaluation, review, acceptance, or rejection of manuscripts.

20. Accepted Manuscripts and Production

Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed to the production stage.

Production may include:

  • copyediting;

  • language consistency review;

  • bibliographic checking;

  • reference verification;

  • metadata preparation;

  • layout and formatting;

  • table and figure checking;

  • preparation of publication files; and

  • other technical procedures required for publication.

Production editing should preserve the scholarly meaning of the accepted manuscript.

21. Author Proof Review

Where proofs are provided, the corresponding author is expected to examine the publication-ready version carefully.

Authors should verify:

  • names and affiliations;

  • article title;

  • abstract;

  • tables;

  • figures;

  • equations;

  • references;

  • metadata; and

  • formatting.

Proof review is primarily intended for the correction of production-related errors.

Substantial changes to methodology, findings, conclusions, data, or authorship after acceptance require editorial authorization.

22. Online Publication

After completion of editorial and production requirements, the article is published online as part of the journal’s scholarly record.

Published articles are made accessible in accordance with the journal’s applicable open-access and licensing policies.

The journal maintains bibliographic metadata necessary to support identification, discoverability, citation, and retrieval of published research.

23. Publication Schedule

The online edition of the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations follows a Quarterly publication schedule, consistent with the declared publication frequency of the online ISSN record.

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication according to editorial completion, issue planning, production readiness, and the journal’s publication schedule.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee placement in a particular issue unless formally confirmed by the journal.

24. Post Publication Responsibility

Editorial responsibility continues after publication.

Readers, authors, institutions, or other stakeholders may notify the journal of errors or concerns affecting published work.

The journal may evaluate matters involving:

  • factual errors;

  • data concerns;

  • authorship;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • methodological problems;

  • research misconduct;

  • duplicate publication;

  • plagiarism;

  • ethical compliance; or

  • other issues affecting the scholarly record.

Where appropriate, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, clarification, or other editorial notice.

25. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit reasoned complaints or appeals concerning editorial procedures or decisions through the journal’s designated mechanism.

Appeals should identify the decision being challenged and provide a substantive academic or procedural basis for reconsideration.

Where practicable, significant appeals should be assessed independently of the individual solely responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the editorial decision.

26. Editorial Principles

Throughout the editorial process, the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations seeks to maintain:

  • editorial independence;

  • confidentiality;

  • impartial peer review;

  • scholarly rigor;

  • responsible authorship;

  • transparent decision-making;

  • appropriate management of conflicts of interest;

  • research integrity;

  • proportional handling of ethical concerns; and

  • protection of the reliability of the scholarly record.

The journal regards peer review as one component of a broader editorial responsibility that begins at manuscript submission and continues after publication.

Commitment to Responsible Editorial Practice

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations is committed to maintaining an editorial environment in which manuscripts are assessed fairly, independently, and according to their scholarly merit.

Through structured initial screening, independent double-blind peer review, transparent revision procedures, editorial oversight, responsible production, and appropriate post publication action, the journal seeks to support credible scholarly communication and the advancement of rigorous research in circular economy innovation.