Regulations for peer review

The main goal of the peer review process is to increase the scientific value of the articles published in the journal by forming impartial procedures for selecting author manuscripts and determining balanced approaches to developing recommendations for their improvement.

All articles sent to the journal, if they meet its profile and are prepared following the standards and requirements of the journal, are submitted for review by at least three reviewers.

Third-party highly qualified specialists who possess deep knowledge in a certain scientific area and/or have the necessary work experience in a certain field of economics, have scientific publications on the relevant issues, and, if necessary, members of the Editorial Board are involved as reviewers. The editorial team does not consider the reviews sent themselves by the authors.

Reviewers make a critical and impartial assessment of the author’s manuscripts submitted for review, following the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The reviewers must objectively determine the advantages and disadvantages of the article and its scientific level, treat the new scientific knowledge presented in it carefully, and endeavor not to harm the author’s reputation and career.

Each article undergoes a “blind” double review — the names of the authors and their personal data are not disclosed to the experts, and the authors are not informed of the names of the reviewers. The reviewers agree that the manuscripts sent to them are the authors’ intellectual property; therefore, the scientific achievements and other information contained in them are not subject to disclosure.

Reviewers send their reviews to the magazine’s e-mail or provide them through the electronic cabinet on the web resource within the set time limits in two versions — with the reviewer’s signature (in pdf format) and without indicating the name (in doc format), which is sent to the author of the article. All signed reviews are kept for three years from the date of their receipt. The person responsible for their storage is the deputy editor-in-chief or the executive secretary. At the end of this period, reviews are destroyed following the Procedure for handling documents that are subject to disposal.

The editorial board members get to read the full texts of the articles, which are submitted for consideration at the editorial board meeting.

One of the following decisions may be made collegially regarding each article submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board: “Publish”, “Publish accepting comments”, “For improvement and approval (by a specific member of the editorial board/reviewer)”, “For improvement with resubmission for review by the editorial board”, “Reject”. The article may be rejected in cases of non-compliance with the journal’s specialization, low scientific level, or plagiarism detection. In case of the article rejection, the Editorial Board does not negotiate and debate with the author.

The deadline for review is 14—30 days.

The author is informed about the decision made by the Editorial Board regarding the article by e-mail signed by the deputy editor-in-chief (executive secretary). The author is to take into account the suggestions and comments given in the reviews to the full, except for the case when the decision “Reject” was made regarding the article.

The author sends the revised article to the official e-mail or provides it through an electronic cabinet on the web resource. The article is re-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief (Deputies of the Editor-in-Chief) for the completeness and quality of consideration of the reviewers' comments and compliance of the article design with the requirements of the Publication.

In case of proper revision and design, the manuscript, according to the previous decision of the Editorial Board, may be approved for publication by the relevant member of the Editorial Board, a reviewer, or the Editor-in-Chief (deputy editor-in-chief), or it may be submitted for reconsideration by the Editorial Board.

During the reconsideration by the Editorial Board, the article is either recommended for publication or rejected without the possibility of further revision.

In the case of detection of plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism in an excessive amount (25—30%) in an already published article, the Editor-in-Chief, reviewer, and member of the Editorial Board informs all other members of the Editorial Board, which retracts the article by its decision. The notice of retraction is placed in the electronic version on the page of the corresponding article and the next printed issue of the journal after discovering the fact of violation of academic integrity. The notice must contain the reason for the retraction and the name of the person who initiated it. The article on the web resource is preserved unchanged, except for a “retracted” watermark on each page in the pdf file. As for the author who violated the principles of academic integrity, the Editorial Board decides to refuse the consideration of any of his articles for two years.