Peer Review Process

The provisions for reviewing the author's original articles (materials), submitted for publication to the editorial Board of the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Economy. Profession. Business"

1. General provisions

1.1. Publication of scientific articles in the journal of the Economy. Profession. Business" includes a mandatory review of papers submitted by the authors of the manuscripts.

1.2. This regulation defines the procedure and terms of articles.

1.3. The regulations meet the requirements of the Higher attestation Commission (HAC), presented to the institution of peer review in academic journals.

2. The order granting the author's original text of the article

2.1. Manuscripts are accepted for consideration provided that it complies with the Rules for the submission of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journal "Economy. Profession. Business."

2.2. The article is registered by the editor in the journal of registration of articles with the date of receipt, name, surname of the author/s, place/their work. Article is assigned a unique registration number. These data are entered into the electronic database.

3. Review Process

3.1. Peer review is required for all manuscripts submitted to the journal for publication.

3.2. Reviewing manuscripts is carried out in 2 stages:

Stage 1 – rapid assessment of the manuscript in accordance with the Rules of submission of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journal "Economy. Profession. Business and for borrowings from open sources (check with the system AntiPlagiat.ru). A rapid assessment of the manuscript is carried out by the editor of a scientific journal within 10 working days after receipt of the manuscript and notify the author/s about the results of the rapid assessment of the manuscript (rejected or accepted the manuscript for further review).

Stage 2 – Double Blind Peer Review.

The review is organized by the editorial Board. Responsible editors send articles for review to two leading experts. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are private property of the authors. Reviewing is carried out anonymously: the reviewers do not know the author of the resulting article, the author does not know the assigned reviewers.

The reviewer should review the scientific article within two weeks of receipt and send to the editorial office (by e-mail, mail) a reasoned opinion on a scientific publication.

If the review contains recommendations on correction and revision of the author's material, the editor of the scientific journal sends the author the text of the review (without the reviewer) with the proposal to consider the recommendations when preparing the new version of the manuscript. Article submitted by the author to the reviewer's comments, discussed in a General manner. In the register a notation of the date of receipt of the revised article.

The presence of a considerable proportion of critical remarks of the reviewer with an overall positive recommendation, the material can be referred to the category of polemical and print it in the manner of scientific debate.

If there are valid reasons articles may be sent for additional review.

3.3. After the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial Board of the journal deals with the question about a submitted manuscript and a final decision is made on the basis of assessment of review of their publication or refusal to publication. On the basis of a judgement author/s is sent a letter (by e-mail) on behalf of the editor. The letter provides an overall assessment of the article: if the article can be published after revision / based observations – recommendations for improvement / correction if the manuscript is not accepted for publication, the reasons for such decision. The editorial office sends the author/s of article the review copy.

3.4. The originals of reviews are kept in editorial office for five years from the date of publication.

3.5. Editors are obliged to send copies of the review to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the relevant request.

3.6. The editors reserve the right to not accept copyrighted material for publication in the following cases:

- non-compliance by the authors of the rules of manuscript preparation;

- identify the elements of plagiarism;

- inconsistency of the material the subject of a scientific journal;

- availability of negative evaluation of the reviewer on the obtained copyrighted material.

3.7. The editorial Board does not store manuscripts not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. Manuscripts that received a negative assessment of the reviewer, are not published and not returned to the author.