Peer-review

Review Policy

All articles submitted to the editorial board undergo a peer-review process, which is designed to ensure a rigorous selection of manuscripts and provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The peer-review process provides an objective assessment of the content of a scientific article and its compliance with the journal’s requirements, as well as a comprehensive analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. The journal publishes only those articles that have scientific value and contribute to solving current problems and challenges of economic development. Reviewers have ethical obligations in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.

All reviewers must adhere to the ethical requirements for scientific publications set forth by the (Committee on Publication Ethics) and remain objective and impartial.

The purpose of the peer review process is to uphold academic integrity and to reconcile and maintain a balance of interests among authors, readers, the editorial board, and reviewers.

The editorial board adheres to a double-blind review policy. The editorial board does not disclose any information regarding the manuscript (including details of its receipt, content, the review process, reviewers’ critical comments, and the final conclusion) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. A breach of confidentiality is possible only in the event of an allegation of inaccuracy or falsification of materials.

Responsibility for copyright infringement and failure to comply with applicable standards in the article’s content rests with the 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 quality of the article.

The article review process consists of the following steps:

1. The article must undergo peer review by a specialist at the author’s place of work or study. At this stage, a so-called “open peer review” is conducted by an official reviewer – an external specialist in the relevant scientific field (Ph.D.). Such a review must contain information regarding the reliability of the results obtained, their relevance and novelty, as well as their practical value, along with recommendations for the publication of the article. The author must submit this review, together with the article, to the editorial board for consideration.

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

3. After that, the article is sent for review to an independent expert in the relevant field of knowledge. Here, a double-blind review is used (neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other). Based on the review, the author may receive one of the following responses:

a) the article has been accepted for publication,

b) the article is recommended for revision,

c) the author’s request to publish the article has been denied.