Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Статті

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

International economic relations

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Economy and innovative development of the national economy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Economy and competitiveness of the enterprises

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

The economic policy of regional development and local government

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Environmental economics and ecologization of the environment

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Demography, population employment and social - economic policy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Marketing and market relations

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Financial–сredit and monetary policy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Statistics, accounting, analysis and audit

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Information technology and economic security

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Review Statement

All articles submitted to the Editorial Board are subjected to the peer-review procedure, which should ensure the strict selection of author’s manuscripts and the provision of specific recommendations for their improvement. Through peer review, an objective assessment of the content of a scientific article and its compliance with the requirements of the journal is determined, and a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages is carried out. The journal publishes only those articles that have scientific value and contribute to the solution of сurrent problems and tasks of economic development. The reviewer has ethical obligations in accordance with the editorial policy of the periodical .

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 purpose of the review procedure is to respect the academic virtue and coordinate and maintain the balance of interests of authors, readers, the Editorial board and reviewers.

The Editorial Board pursues the policy of double blind review. The Editorial Board provides information concerning the manuscript (in particular, information about its receipt, content, review process, criticism of reviewers and final conclusion) to no one except the authors and reviewers. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement of inaccuracy or falsification of materials.

Responsibility for copyright infringement and failure to comply with the existing standards in the materials of the article rests with its author. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the scientific and practical level of the article.

 

The process of reviewing articles consists of the following steps:

1. The article should be reviewed by a specialist at the place of work or training of the author. At this stage, the so-called “open peer review” is used by the official reviewer – an external specialist of the corresponding scientific profile (doctor of sciences). Such a review should contain information on the reliability of the results obtained, their relevance and novelty, as well as practical value with the recommendations for publication of the article. Such a review, together with the article, should be submitted by the author to the Editorial Board.

2. Review of an article by one of the members of the Editorial Board (single-blind review – the reviewer knows the author, but the author does not know the reviewer).

3. After that, the article is sent to an independent expert in the relevant field of expertise. The double-blind review is used there (neither the author nor the reviewer does not know each other). Based on the review, the author can receive one of the following answers:

a) the article is accepted for printing,

b) it is recommended to edit the article,

c) the author’s article is rejected.

  

FORM OF ASSESSMENT BY REVIEWER

Title of the Article:

Registration code:

No.

Question to the reviewer

Yes

No

Comments

1

Does the subject-matter correspond with the scientific specialisation of the journal?

 

 

 

2

Is the subject-matter scientifically topical and practically useful?

 

 

 

3

Does the name of the article reflect contents and purpose of the article?

 

 

 

4

Is scientific reasoning logical and convincing?

 

 

 

5

Are the results of the research represented methodologically correctly?

 

 

 

6

Do conclusions completely and correctly illustrate results of the research, showing what is new and providing proposals for future research?

 

 

 

7

Can or should some parts of the article be reduced, removed, expanded or revised?

 

 

 

8

Do you have any recommendation with respect to the style and wording of the article?

 

 

 

9

Are you satisfied with a number, quality and expediency of references to bibliography?

 

 

 

10

Does abstract contain clearly set goals?

 

 

 

 

Recommendation of the reviewer

 

 

Recommended for publication
Recommended for revision
Not recommended for publication

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.