- The manuscript undergoes a double-blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other. The presented manuscripts are sent to at least one, and mostly two, external experts working in the relevant field (make a reference to the list of reviewers).The article goes through the procedure of double anonymous review («double blind peer review»).
- Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements placed in the SECTION FOR AUTHORS. Scientific articles designed in accordance with the section are allowed to the review stage. Requirements for articles that have passed initial control in the editorial office and verification of copyright and compliance with the subject of the journal.
- Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements placed in the section Instructions for authors. Scientific articles designed in accordance with the section Requirements for articles that have passed initial control in the editorial office, copyright verification and correspond to the aims and scope of the Journal are allowed to the review stage.
- The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. In cases where the editor-in-chief has a personal interest in publication (is the author, co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the examination is conducted by his deputy or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. The materials sent must correspond to the topic of the magazine. In case of compliance with the requirements for the publication of the journal, the article is handed over to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and deletes information about the author or authors from it.
- Anonymous article sent by email:
- to the member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
- to two external independent experts (reviewers).
Ukrainian and foreign scientists specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in external review. A letter with a request for review is sent to such a scientist on behalf of the editors. An anonymous article and a review form are attached to the letter. Reviewers may not be associated with the same institution as the author and may not have a conflict of interest.
- In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues:
- Is the topic of this article relevant?;
- Are there informative keywords in each language designed according to the requirements of the abstract in Ukrainian and English?;
- Does the article meet formal requirements (availability of all structural subdivisions: UDC Index and JEL Classification; problem statement; analysis of recent research and publications; formulation of hypotheses and setting goals; research methods; presentation of the main material; conclusions; prospects for further research.;
- Is the proper number of literary sources processed (at least 20)
- Do the article cite and link to them correctly?
- Does the article have elements of scientific novelty?
- Is the article determined by the originality of the presentation (availability of new approaches to solving the problem, availability of statistical studies, new methods)
- Are the conclusions given in the article sufficiently substantiated.6. Reviewers fill out standard review forms and choose one of the options:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after revisions;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewers' recommendation regarding the article is rejected or revised, then they must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviews signed by reviewers with a regular or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.
- The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles to be revised are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, during which reviewers may ask for additional corrections. Finalizations do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
- The editor-in-chief analyzes the reviewers' reviews and, based on them, makes the final decision on publication, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the journal's requirements. The editor-in-chief does not participate in decision-making regarding articles authored by himself, his family members or colleagues, as well as materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. All such articles undergo independent review without the participation of the editor or his research group. The final decision on these articles is made by the deputy editor-in-chief.
If the referee reports are positive, the article is recommended to print. If both referee reports are negative, the article is rejected. In case if reviews are contrary (one positive and one negative), then editorail board sends the article for review to the third reviewer. Editors reserve the right to accept an article for publishing if it does not meet certain requirements, but subject to finalization of the text by the author. The final decision on admission of article to publication is accepted by the editorial team. In case of rejection of the article, the author may read the referee reports and editorial modifications.
The average time, during which the preliminary assessment of manuscript is conducted - 15 days.
The average time during which the reviews of articles are conducted - 60 days.
The average time in which the article is published - 6 months.
For Reviewers
The Rules for Peer-Reviewers
- The main task of peer-reviewer is the evaluation of submitted articles. He or she makes the decision to publish or not the submitted articles. Peer-reviewer via Editor-in-Chief may give the author the advice how to improve the submitted articles.
- Peer-reviewer communicates directly with the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Secretaries.
- Peer-reviewer must be specialist of the high level in the domain which is presented in the submitted articles.
- Each submitted article is considered as confidential material and should be sent only to the chosen reviewers by Editor-in-Chief or Executive Secretaries after consultations with Editor-in-Chief.
- Peer-reviewer must be objective, inform the Editor or the Executive Secretaries about any similarities of the submitted articles with the articles which he or she knows.
- Acceptance and rejection of submitted articles must be grounded on the peer reviewer's arguments which should be clear and avoid any personal criticism.