UK Gatton College of Business and Economics
 
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Southern Economic Journal “Fast Track” Initiative

Southern Economic Journal “Fast Track” Initiative

December 2, 2024

The SEJ is delighted to announce a new submission option called “Fast Track” under which authors can submit the decision letter and reviewer reports from a different journal that previously reviewed the paper. Our objective is to streamline the process of moving from initial submission to final decision, which in economics often takes years and requires multiple rounds of intensive revisions.

The peer-review process plays an essential role in scholarly research by ensuring that published studies do not suffer from major flaws that undercut the credibility of the results. However, top economics journals often publish only around 5% of submitted papers, meaning that many high-quality papers are also rejected. Some of these papers are rejected on subjective grounds such as fit or extent of the contribution to the literature. In those cases, the paper may not need extensive revision to be publishable – it simply needs to find the right match. Other papers are rejected due to confusion on the part of referees or editors that could be cleared up in a short note. Still other papers are rejected because of valid but addressable concerns. Our new policy aims to enable papers such as these to obtain a quick verdict at SEJ rather than waiting potentially months for new reports.

The process and rules are as follows:

  1. Authors interested in this option need to select “Fast Track” from the drop-down menu in the SEJ submission portal.
  2. The previous editor’s decision letter and ALL reviewer reports from that journal must be uploaded as “other files accompanying submission”.
    1. The letter and reports must be complete and unedited, with screenshots from the journal’s submission portal being ideal.
    2. The decision letter must include the date, names of the editor and journal, and a statement about the number of reviewers. The decision letter cannot be more than six months old. If the letter does not state the number of reviewers, other evidence of the number of reports (e.g. screenshot from the submission portal) must be presented. 
    3. SEJ editors reserve the right to contact the previous editor to confirm the validity of the materials submitted.
    4. Evidence of intentional misrepresentation of the decision letter or reports will result in an immediate rejection, a three-year ban on submitting papers to the SEJ, and potentially also a notification of one’s department head.
    5. The fast-track option cannot be used for papers that were rejected without reviews at the previous journal; there must be referee reports.
  3. Authors may include a cover letter that briefly describes any important misunderstandings on the part of the reviewers/editor and/or their plan for how to address issues identified in the reports.
  4. Authors are not expected to revise the paper before submitting it. In fact, we encourage submission of the exact version rejected by the previous journal, as this makes evaluation easier. If revisions are made prior to submission, these should be explained in the cover letter.
  5. The SEJ submission fee will need to be paid as with any other submission.
  6. The paper will be assigned to the appropriate co-editor for the topic, as with any other submission.
  7. The co-editor assigned to the paper has the following options:
    1. Make a decision themselves based on the decision letter and reports from the other journal and their own reading of the paper.
    2. If more information is needed, the co-editor can consult one or more associate editors, who will provide short, to-the-point evaluations based on all submission files. 
    3. In rare cases, the co-editor may feel that they cannot make a decision without one or more new referee reports. In such cases, the new reviewers will be given the manuscript but not the files pertaining to the old journal.
    4. The co-editor will not be able to reach out to the former reviewers, as SEJ has no way to identify them. While co-editors have the right to email the former editor if there is a concern about the validity of the submission files, they should not ask the editor to disclose the reviewers’ names.
  8. If the co-editor issues a revise-and-resubmit decision, the process from that point forward is identical to any other submission. For instance, point-by-point responses to reviewer comments should be included in the revision.
    1. Authors should be mindful that co-editors cannot go back to the original reviewers. Therefore, it may be advantageous in some cases to paraphrase the reviewer comment in plain language before responding.

Questions can be directed to SEJ’s lead editor Charles Courtemanche at courtemanche@uky.edu.