The editors of the Journal of Forest Business Research are committed to providing a high-quality scientific journal that promotes the exchange and validation of ideas, leading to progress in fields related to the business side of sustainable and responsible forest investments and management. Scientific research articles and scholarly reviews are subjected to a conventional peer-review process, using a double-blind procedure. Journal’s editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors, peer-reviews are not published and are owned by authors of the reviews.

The peer-review process in the Journal of Forest Business Research is following:

1. Manuscript arrives to the Editorial System operated by OJS software that manages the submission and review processes.
2. Managing Editor anonymize manuscript authorship by removing author(s) names, affiliations, document details or any other information that potentially could recognize author(s). Also, in this step the Plagiarism Checker powered by Grammarly software is performed to check the originality of manuscripts.
3. Next, four editors review the article and vote if it fits the scope of JFBR and fulfils minimum requirements for peer-review. The decision takes into account the Grammarly report indicating manuscript metrics (e.g., reading time, number of words and sentences), its overall score, writing issues and plagiarism evaluation.
   If article is clearly outside the scope of the journal, or it is too similar with earlier published work, the article is desktop rejected and does not enter the peer-review stage.
   If author(s) do not adhere to the author guidelines at JFBR, or the manuscript is scientifically incomplete and/or lacks a significant, novel contribution to the field, or it is difficult to understand due to e.g., linguistic problems, the manuscript is returned to authors for revision.
   If the authors decide to resubmit the revised version, it will be considered as a new submission.
   If article fulfills minimum requirements for peer-review, the leading Editor is assigned to the manuscript.
4. Leading Editor of the manuscript selects the reviewers and submits the manuscript to peer-review. Leading Editor and the authors know each other’s identity but the reviewers work under anonymity. As a standard of JFBR, two qualified scientists are assigned for each manuscript. The reviewers must follow reviewers guidelines and are asked to submit the review report using OJS, and have the opportunity to provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission (no revisions required; this is quite rare).
• Revisions Required (manuscript will be acceptable after either minor or major revisions; please provide an explanation of the revisions required in your review report).
• Resubmit for Review (manuscript requires major revision, possibly with the addition of new experiments, and the reviewer wishes to evaluate the revised version).
• Resubmit Elsewhere (manuscript is technically sound, but limited in scope or a better fit for a different journal).
• Decline Submission (manuscript is flawed in such a way that it should not be published).
• See Comments (for any other recommendation that does not fit any of the above categories).

After considering all review reports, the Leading Editor will ultimately determine if the manuscript is suitable for publication. The journal also encourages contribution of editorial opinion pieces, which may be selected, on a limited basis, at the Editors’ discretion.

Before accepting or declining a review, please consider whether or not the manuscript is within your area of expertise, whether or not you have a conflict of interest, and whether or not you have the time to invest in a proper review. Please respond, to either accept or decline, as soon as you can.

To start your review, please provide a short summary of the article. This shows the Editor that you have read and comprehended the article. Then, give your primary impressions of the article. Is it novel? Is it interesting? Will it have a significant impact on this area of research? Is it up to the standards of JFBR?

Specific comments and suggestions will also help the authors improve the manuscript. It is helpful to concentrate on the experimental methodology, the discussion of the results, and the conclusions reached by the authors. Issues such as grammar and formatting will be handled by the editorial staff, so you do not need to spend time on these aspects of the manuscript. To facilitate the revision process, comments about specific items in a reviewed article should be listed according to line number.