Review
Provisions on Article Review
The review procedure is applied to all articles submitted to the editorial board. The objective of a review is to promote rigorous selection of author manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determination of its compliance with the journal requirements and provides a comprehensive analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Only the articles that have value from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current economic problems and tasks are approved for publication. The level of compliance with the rules for preparing articles for publication in the scientific journal is evaluated separately.
The main purpose of the review procedure is eliminating instances of substandard practice of scientific research and providing coordination and balancing of interests of authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the study was carried out.
The reviewing of manuscripts is held confidentially. By submitting a manuscript to the editors of the journal, the authors entrust to the editors the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. The disclosure of confidentiality of the manuscript review violates the rights of the author. The editors do not report the information concerning the manuscript (including information on its receipt, content, reviewing process, criticism by reviewers and final opinion) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. A breach of confidentiality may only occur in instances of allegations of inauthenticity or falsification of the material, in all other cases its preservation is obligatory.
Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the material of the article rests on the author. Responsibility for verification of facts and data, the validity of the findings and recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article rests on the author and reviewer.
All articles submitted for publication are subject to double review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article. The members of the editorial board recommend as reviewers individuals who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article and have publications on the topic of the article.
When preparing the review, the reviewer must answer “yes”, or “no, needs minor revision”, or “no, needs significant revision”, “position is missing, needs to be added” to the following questions (the question is indicated in the template for the reviewer on the OJS platform):
- Does the title of the article correspond to its content and purpose?
- The abstract with keywords reflects the main content of the article and corresponds to the IMRAD structure?
- Are the key ideas of the article original, scientifically significant and interesting to the readership?
- Are the main results of the article scientifically sound and significant?
- Do the article and its key parts correspond to the IMRAD structure and the technical requirements of the journal?
- Are the tables and figures justified, relevant, and meet the journal's requirements?
- Is the research methodology appropriate and properly substantiated?
- Is the language of the article scientific, grammatically correct, and understandable to the readership?
- Has knowledge of the relevant literature issues of the article been demonstrated?
- Are the conclusions clear and well-reasoned?
If the reviewers have chosen the answers "no, needs minor revision" or "no, needs significant revision", "position missing, needs to be added" for any item, they must write substantiated comments and explain to the authors how to improve the article.
If the article does not have a template position, for example, position 6, then the reviewer selects "position not provided".
Editors have the right not to notify the author of those comments that contain a subjective assessment of the provisions of the manuscript, or are offensive, or do not meet the established requirements and criteria specified above.
Editors mediate all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review of the article before publication. If agreement cannot be reached, editors may invite additional reviewers.
The responsible editor has the right to return the review for revision if the reviewer has not met the requirements set for reviewers, the review contains ambiguous remarks.
Reviewers do not perform structural or linguistic-stylistic editing of the manuscript, but, if necessary, report editorial problems to the authors and editors of the journal in the appropriate review block.
Reviewers' decisions may be as follows (according to the requirements of the OJS system):
accept the submission;
necessary corrections (authors have 5 working days to make minor changes in accordance with the reviewers' comments, the author sends an improved version that does not require additional review);
additional review is required (in the case of significant comments from the reviewer (the article requires revision of the content, inclusion in the text of additional experimental results, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions, etc.), the editorial office orders the author to submit a version of the article with repeated review, for which the author is given from four to eight weeks to significantly revise the manuscript. Additional review is also required if the reviewer cannot make a decision and suggests involving another expert);
reject the submission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be asked to resubmit the article after significantly revising the content, if, in the opinion of the reviewers, the article requires additional experiments, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions);
see comments (the reviewer cannot make a decision and suggests that the editorial office decide collectively based on his comments).
If the article can be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors’ recommendations, if any.
The author resubmits the revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers’ comments. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article.
The editor-in-chief directly assesses the quality of the changes or sends the article to the reviewers for re-evaluation. In the case of a second round of review, the reviewer may be asked to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s recommendations made during the first round of review.
Reviewers must clearly and reasonedly express their point of view, be polite and constructive in their recommendations.
The author must respond to all reviewer comments in accordance with the review points.
The total review period cannot exceed 2 months from the date the article is received by the reviewer.
The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of manuscript review.
The editorial board takes into account the comments of the reviewers, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
