- The following regulate the process of reviewing and handling articles that are delivered to the Editorial Board of the Electronic Scientific Professional Edition on Economics «Modern Economics».
- Aim of reviewing – increase of quality of scientific articles published in the electronic scientific professional edition by means of assessment of materials by highly qualified experts.
- The review procedure is anonymous both for the reviewer and for the authors and is performed by two independent reviewers (double “blind” reviewing).
- All reviewers shall stick to requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics with respect to ethics in scientific publications and be objective and impartial.
- The following issues are considered in reviews:
• whether the article contents correspond with its subject (as set in title);
• whether the article has certain originality;
• whether the article corresponds with the scientific level of the electronic scientific professional edition;
• whether article publication is expedient, taking into account earlier publications on this issue and whether it is of interest for a wide circle of readers;
• what exactly are the pluses and minuses of the article; what corrections and additions (if any) should be made by the author.
- Only those articles that are prepared in strict accordance with the article requirements and that pass the primary control of the Editorial Board will be passed on for reviewing.
- In the event of remarks made at the stage of primary control, the article can be sent back to the author.
- The coded article is sent via electronic mail to:
a) a member of the Editorial Board;
b) an external reviewer.
External reviewers are domestic and foreign doctors of economics that have published scientific works on the subject matter declared in the article. A letter is sent by the Editorial Board to such a scholar with a request to review the article. The coded article and a standard review form are enclosed with the letter. As a rule, an external reviewer is selected in a random manner, with consideration for his or her workload and agreement.
- The Editorial Board member and external reviewer who receive the coded article fill in a standard form and choose one of the following variants of recommendation: recommended for publication, recommended for revision, not recommended for publication.
- In the event of refusal to publish or when revision is needed, the reviewer/member of the Editorial Board should provide a written, well-reasoned justification of such a decision.
- Term of making recommendations: two weeks from the receipt of the article.
- The final decision with respect to the article is made during a meeting of the Editorial Board. The decision is made in consideration of the received reviews.
- The articles accepted for publication, are handled further by the Editorial Staff in accordance with the production process of preparation of the article.
- The decision of the Editorial Board is sent to the author(s). Articles that are subject to revision are sent to the author(s) together with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations on revision of the article. The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity of reviewers.
- The revised version of the article is sent for a second review. In the event the second review is also negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
- The Editorial Board does not enter into discussions with authors of rejected articles.
- Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the Editorial Office for 2 years from the date of issue of the Electronic Scientific Professional Edition on Economics in which the reviewed article is published.