The peer-review policy
The peer-review procedure is mandatory for all scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Board. The peer-review aims at evaluating the author's manuscripts by highly qualified experts to ensure a high scientific level of publication materials.
The reviewers of the scientific periodical are specialists in scientific fields and specialties in the field of periodical (Public administration, Economics), have scientific degrees, are active researchers and have publications on relevant topics.
Scientific articles that are designed following the requirements for the author's manuscripts, approved by the editorial board of the scientific periodical and regulations are allowed for a review.
Before the scientific review, the author's manuscripts of articles are checked for compliance with formal requirements (technical design of the text, bibliography, tables, figures) and correct citation (no plagiarism).
Properly designed and well-structured articles that do not contain plagiarism are submitted for review. Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief or his/her deputies.
If the author's manuscript does not meet the formal requirements, it is returned to the author for revision. In case of detection of plagiarism - the author's manuscript is rejected from consideration and further review.
The peer-review procedure is anonymous for both the author and the reviewer, i.e. two-way “blind” peer-review is used. Prerequisite: no conflict of interest.
Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance, provide recommendations for eliminating shortcomings. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, its relevance, reliability and validity of the author's conclusions, the level of uniqueness of the author's text.
Reviewers draw up an expert opinion following the form proposed by the editorial board and send it to the editorial office (attach the form).
In case the author refuses to publish or needs to revise the article, reviewers provide written reasoned explanations of the reasons for their decision and clear recommendations. Copies of anonymous expert opinions are sent to the authors for review. Revised articles are sent by the authors for re-review.
If the author does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, he/she has the right to provide a written reasoned response to the editor-in-chief of the periodical, by decision of which the article may be sent for re-review to another reviewer.
The final decision on approving the article for publication is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the received reviews and recommendations of the members of the editorial board.
The originals of reviews/expert opinions or accompanying documents to the article are kept in the editorial office for three years.