по-русски

Actual Problems
of Economics and Law

 

16+

 

Regulations on reviewing scientific articles

Considered and recommended for execution
by the Editorial Board of the Journal
“Actual Problems of Economics and Law”
on September 12, 2007

1. The article will be receivable only on condition that it corresponds to the requirements for the author’s original articles (materials) published in the Journal or at the Journal’s web site apel.ieml.ru.

2. The author sends to the Editorial Board the following: one thoroughly read and signed copy of the article, the author’s form, a letter to the Editorial Board, an abstract of the article in Russian and English languages, key words for the article in Russian and English languages, and digital copies of all documents on any digital medium or by e-mail: apel@ieml.ru.

3. The article is registered by the Executive Secretary in the log journal, stating the date of receiving the article, its title, name of the author/authors, working place of the author/authors. An individual register number is attributed to the article.

4. The Chief Editor (Vice Editor) directs the article for reviewing to the member of Editorial Board responsible for the corresponding direction / scientific sphere. In the absence of the member of Editorial Board or in case the article is submitted by the member of Editorial Board the Co-editor-in-chief directs the article for reviewing to the external reviewers.

5. All reviewers should be renowned specialists in the sphere of the reviewed materials, and have publications on the topic of the reviewed article in the recent 3 years.

6. Each scientific article should be supplied by a review from a specialist in the corresponding scientific sphere having a Doctoral or Candidate’s degree.

7. Reviewing of the articles submitted for publication in the Journal is double blind, i.e. the author does not know the reviewer and the reviewer does not know the author of the article.

8. The reviewer should study the article during two weeks since receiving it and send to the Editorial Board (by e-mail or post) the motivated refusal from reviewing, or the review during a month since receiving the article.

9. The Editorial Board recommends using the standard form while reviewing. The reviewer may recommend the article for publishing, recommend the article for publishing after correcting with the account of remarks, or not recommend the article for publishing. If the reviewer recommends the article for publishing after correcting with the account of remarks, or does not recommend the article for publishing, the review should contain the reasons for such a decision.

10. The presence of a significant number of critical remarks of the reviewer alongside with the positive overall recommendation allows to view the article as disputable and publish it as a part of scientific discussion.

11. While estimating the reviews one should pay attention to the topicality of the scientific issue discussed by the author. The review should explicitly characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the research, and to correlate the author’s conclusions with the existing scientific conceptions. The necessary element of the review is the reviewer’s estimation of the author’s personal contribution into solving the scientific issue. The review should estimate the correspondence of the style, logic and comprehensibility of the text to the scientific character of the material, and give the conclusion about the reliability and relevance of the results.

12. After receiving the reviews the Editorial Board views the received articles and makes the final decision about publishing or declining the articles, basing on the reviews estimation. After the decision is made, the letter by the Co-editor-in-chief (Vice  Editor) is sent to the author/authors. The letter contains the general estimation of the article. If the article is recommended for publishing after correcting with the account of remarks, the recommendations are given as to how to correct the article and take remarks into account; if the article is not recommended for publishing, the reasons for such a decision should be listed.

13. The articles can be directed for additional or anonymous reviewing if there are sufficient reasons for that.

14. The article directed by the author to the Editorial Board after correcting the remarks, is reviewed in general order.

15. Employing the external reviewers can take place in the following occasions: in the absence of an Editorial Board member responsible for the corresponding scientific sphere; the Editorial Board member cannot make the review; the Editorial Board does not agree with the opinion of the Editorial Board member expressed in the review; the article is submitted by the Editorial Board member.At the meeting of Editorial Board the decision is made to ask to review the article a scientist having research works in the sphere of the article. On behalf of the Editorial Board a letter with a request to write a review is sent to such scientist. The article and the recommended form of a review are enclosed in the letter.

 16. The reviews will be kept in the Publishing House and in the office of the Editorial Board during 5 years.