“Science does NOT know Borders


The International Open Access Journal of Resistive Economics (OAJRE) kindly invites distinguished research scientists (only with PhD) to join in and work on the scientific committees and editorial review boards of the journals. Membership in the Open Access Journal of Resistive Economics (OAJRE) scientific committees and editorial review boards can open windows of opportunity for your professional growth and development as free-of-charge. Through special scientific committees and editorial review boards, and numerous occasions for scientific exchange with colleagues, journal of resistive economics gives distinguished research scientists the power to enhance their knowledge, skills, and professional options.




Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, OAJRE’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. OAJRE adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, OAJRE needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4 weeks. Maintaining OAJRE as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.




If OAJRE’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about; the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines;
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
  6. Reporting possible research misconducts;
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors;
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
  15. Writing review report in English only;
  16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.



  1. Novelty;
  2. Originality;
  3. Scientific Reliability;
  4. Valuable contribution to the science;
  5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study;
  6. Ethical aspects;
  7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
  8. References provided to substantiate the content;
  9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling;
  10. Scientific misconduct.