What happens during the peer review process?
The procedure of peer review:
1. All scientific articles submitted to the journal “Economic Consultant” undergo peer review.
2. All submissions to the journal are initially reviewed by the Scientific Editor and his Associates. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected without peer review if it is felt that they are not of high enough priority or not relevant to the journal. This fast rejection process means that authors are given a quick decision and do not need to wait for the review process. Manuscripts that are not instantly rejected are sent out for peer review. Secretary of the journal defines the article to the journal profile, the requirements for registration and sends it for review to the specialist, doctor of sciences who are closest to the topic of scientific specialization.
3. Under consideration of materials is applied double blind reviewing (Double-Blind Peer Review), when the author and the reviewer don’t see information about each other during of work. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity (submit the manuscript and authors details 2 separate files; remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript; use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken; cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2020]’; remove references to funding sources; do not include acknowledgments etc.).
4. The review deadline in each case is determined by the secretary of journal, however, on average it takes from 4 to 12 weeks.
5. The review covers the following questions:
- does the content of the articles stated in the title;
- is the abstract of the article are informative;
- availability of the article to readers, for whom it is intended, from the point of view of language, style, structure, clarity of tables, charts, figures and formulas;
- it appropriate to publish an article based on a previously issued on the subject of literature;
- what exactly are the positive aspects and shortcomings of the article, corrections and additions should be made by the author;
- recommended with amendments reviewer deficiencies or recommended the article for publication in the journal.
6. Reviews are certified in the manner prescribed in the institution where the reviewer works.
7. The review is confidential. The article author has an opportunity to read the text of the review. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in the case of the reviewer’s statements about the unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the article.
8. Following the review of the manuscript, recommendations are made on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
a) the article is recommended for publication in this form;
b) the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
c) the article needs additional review by another specialist;
d) the article cannot be published in the journal.
9. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the secretary of the journal send the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account in preparing a new version of the article or arguments (partially or fully) to refute them. A revised article is sent for reviewing.
10. The article is not recommended by the reviewer for publication, to be re-reviewed. The negative review is sent to the author by e-mail.
11. After taking a reviewer for a positive decision on the admission of articles for publication, the secretary of the journal informs the author and indicates the date of publication. The text of the review is sent to the author by e-mail or Fax.
12. The originals are kept in the editorial office of the journal “Economic Consultant” within five years.
Economic Consultant 