00:4729.04.201704.2017с 01.01.2017
Просмотры0894130554
Посетители4519017081
RuEn

Peer Review Process

All scientific papers submitted to the editor of the journal “Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast” undergo mandatory double-blind peer review (the manuscript is sent to the reviewer without disclosing the information about the authors of the manuscript; the review is sent to the author without disclosing the information about the reviewer).

Composition of the Reviewers

The reviewers are members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Staff of the Journal; there are also external reviewers: Doctors of Sciences or PhDs whose scientific specialization corresponds to the subject of the manuscript. Persons without an academic degree, but who are experts in a particular area, may also be involved into reviewing.

All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the material they are to review, and in the past 3 years they have published their own research findings on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.

The composition of the reviewers is approved by the chief editor upon the presentation of the deputy chief editor. The composition of the reviewers can be extended upon the presentation of the Editorial Staff and Editorial Board of the Journal.

Peer Review Procedure

All manuscripts undergo initial review by one of the deputy chief editors of the Journal. Having looked through the manuscript, the deputy chief editor has the right to decide against publication if the manuscript does not correspond to the remit or requirements of the Journal. In this case, the author(s) receive a justified refusal.

Having received the manuscript, the reviewer carries out its review in accordance with the prescribed review form, guided by the reviewer’s memo.

The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the manuscript if there is an apparent conflict of interest that affects perception and interpretation of the manuscript. After reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer gives one of the following recommendations (each point stated by the reviewer should be substantiated): the article is recommended for publication in its present form; the article is recommended for publication after the drawbacks noted by the reviewer have been corrected; the article cannot be published in the Journal.

If the manuscript is recommended for publication by the reviewers (or one of the reviewers) after the drawbacks have been corrected, then the editor by the decision of the chief editor or his/her deputy, sends the author(s) the manuscript with the attached review(s) without specifying the names of the reviewer(s). The author should improve the manuscript taking into account all the comments of the reviewers. If the author does not agree with any of the reviewers’ comments, he/she should submit to the editor a written justification of his/her position together with the revised version of the manuscript. The chief editor or deputy chief editor decides upon the publication of the article in the Journal or upon its re-direction to the reviewers (together with the explanatory note written by the author). When the article is submitted to the reviewers, the latter make a new conclusion concerning the possibility of publishing the article. The final decision on publication is made by the chief editor or at the Editorial Staff meeting.

If the authors refuse to revise and improve their manuscripts, they should notify verbally or in writing the editor of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the modified version of the manuscript within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editor takes the manuscript off the register even if the authors did not confirm their refusal to revise the article. In such cases, the authors receive a notification of the withdrawal of the manuscript from the register in connection with expiration of the deadline for revision.

The final decision on the recommendation of the manuscript for publication or rejection of its publication is adopted at the meeting of the Editorial Staff by a simple majority vote.

After the Editorial Staff makes a decision to accept the paper for publication, the editor informs the author about it and specifies the scheduled date of publication.

The presence of a positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. Final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Staff. In case of conflict, the decision is made by the chief editor.

Period of Review

The manuscript is sent for review immediately after its submission to the editorial office.

The period of review is 10 working days from receipt of the manuscript by reviewer. If additional time for review is necessary, this period may be extended at the request of the reviewer.

Storage and use of the reviews

The original reviews are kept in the Journal’s editorial office and in the publisher office permanently (not less than 5 years).

Manuscript reviews are not published and are used only in the internal document circulation of the editorial office, and when communicating with the authors.

The editor of the journal “Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast” sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.