Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Статті

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

National and regional economics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Demography and labor economics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Social policy and economics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Bright memory of colleagues

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Management and business administration

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Personnel management and labor economics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Demography, social economy and politics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

1. The editorial board supports the world standards of transparency of the review process, so this publication practices a double blind manuscript review.

2. Scientific articles, which are registered in the editorial board, are subject to review, which are performed by highly qualified specialists in the relevant scientific fields. They have a doctorate or a Ph.D. degree, a research and publication in the corresponding specialty and subject. If necessary, the chairman of the editorial board of the magazine additionally attracts specialists in the relevant specialty in case of revealing different positions of reviewers, the author - the article is sent to the third reviewer and additionally considered at the meeting of the editorial board of the magazine. The reviewers are elected by the chairman of the editorial board of the magazine and his deputies.

3. The articles submitted to the magazine are immediately sent to the review by two independent experts. The reviewer is acquainted with the annotation of the article, after which he agrees or refuses to review the given material. In the event of a failure within a few days, another reviewer is appointed.

3. The reviewer evaluates the scientific level of the article within 8-10 working days from the date of receipt by filling in the "Form of Rendering" and sends it to the editorial staff of the magazine personally or by e-mail. In case of impossibility to criticize the article, the reviewer sends a motivated refusal within three days from the day the letter of the editorial board was received. The terms of review in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the maximum prompt publication of the article, but can not exceed two weeks.

4. In the submitted form, reviewers provide their comments and download files with patches or materials that can be used to refine the article. The review should clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research, correlate the title of the article, the purpose of the article and the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. An essential element of the review is the review by the reviewer of the personal contribution of the author to the solution of the problem, its relevance and novelty. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation of the scientific nature of the material, the completeness and adequacy of the disclosure of the topic in the presentation of the article, in the extended annotations, to assess the authenticity and validity of the author's conclusions, completeness, sufficiency and relevance of the author's citations, adherence to scientific ethics, in particular the absence of a plagiarized article in the peer-reviewed article.

5. The conclusion of the reviewer, concluded in the form proposed by the editor, must be signed by the reviewer, indicating the place of work, position, academic degree, academic rank, the date of completion of the review

6. After completing the main "Review forms", experts choose one of the suggested recommendations:

Accept the submission - the submission is ready for publication and is accepted unchanged
Need to be finalized - accepted if the author takes into account the comments
Return to review - submission will be accepted or rejected after refinement and re-review
Reject a submission - the submission does not meet the requirements of the publication.

7. If a review with comments and recommendations is received, an article with an anonymous copy of the review is sent to the authors for revision. During the week, the author finalizes the article and downloads a new version of the journal. In updating the articles on comments of reviewers, the author distinguishes in the elaborated electronic version of the article modified text, attached sentences, tables, drawings or other attached material for the prompt review by the reviewer of the comments taken into account on the submitted reviews.
After updating the author (s) of the article for comments, the materials are sent to the reviewer to check the changes and additions.
After receiving the conclusions of the reviewers on the suitability for publication of the articles finalized by the authors.
If after this period the article has not been returned (or the delay has not been reported to the editor) - the submission is removed from the queue.

8. Originals of reviews are stored in the editorial office for two years.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.