- The present regulations regulate the order 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 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 to be objective and impartial.
- The following issues are considered in reviews:
• whether article contents correspond with its subject (set in title);
• whether article contents have certain novelty;
• whether 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 positive sides and shortcomings of the article; what corrections and additions (if any) should be introduced by the author.
- Only those articles, which were prepared in strict accordance with the article requirements and that passed primary control of the Editorial Board, would be passed over for reviewing.
- In the event of availability of remarks 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 scientific works on the subject-matter declared in the article. A letter is sent by the Editorial Board to such a scientist 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 random manner with consideration of his or her workload and agreement.
- The Editorial Board member and external reviewer, who received the coded article, fill in a standard form and choose one of the variants of recommendation – recommended for publication; recommended for revision; not recommended for publication.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 moment of 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 with consideration of the received reviews.
- The article, which was accepted for publication, is handled further by the Editorial Staff in accordance with the production process of preparation of the article.
- 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. Editorial Board guarantees anonymity of reviewers.
- The revised variant of the article is sent for the second reviewing. In the event the second review is also negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
- Editorial Board does not enter into argument with authors of rejected articles.
- Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the Editorial Office in the electronic form during 2 years from the date of issue of the electronic scientific professional edition, where the reviewed article is published.