Editorial policies

REVIEW GUIDELINES

1. General provisions

1.1. The present Review guidelines apply to the process of reviewing authors’ original works submitted to The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (the Journal).

1.2. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles carried out in the editorial office of the Journal is aimed at ensuring and maintaining high standards of research publications and selecting the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.

1.3. All materials submitted to the Journal are subject to review. Supervisors’ reviews are accepted by the editors though they can not substitute for reviews arranged by the Journal.

2. Preliminary check

2.1. The editors of the Journal accept manuscripts of articles describing scientific views, findings and achievements related to fundamental and applied research in economics.

2.2. Manuscripts are to be submitted online through the SUBMIT ARTICLE page (https://vestnik-ieran.ru/ms/index.php) in the form of carefully proofread copies formatted according to the publication requirements. The manuscripts must not have been published elsewhere and must not have been accepted for consideration in other journals.

2.3. The authors are informed about the receipt of manuscripts automatically after their submission.

2.4. The editors first of all check whether a submitted manuscript fits the Journal’s policy and scope, and whether it meets all requirements for the design of scientific articles. These requirements can be found on the Journal's website (https://vestnik-ieran.ru/eng/index.php/instructions-for-authors).

2.5. Manuscripts that fail the above tests are returned to the authors. The authors are informed about the reason(s) for the rejection of manuscripts.

2.6. If within 14 days the author does not receive a letter of rejection of the manuscript (due to the manuscript’s failing the "Anti-Plagiarism" test, not fitting the Journal’s policy and scope, etc.) to the e-mail specified at the time of its submission, it means that the article has passed the stage of initial review and has been sent out for reviewing to referees (reviewers). Authors are not informed of the referees' identities.

3. Peer review process

3.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office of the Journal are subject to peer review.

3.2. The editors of the Journal invite members of the editorial board and outside experts as reviewers. For each article they select scientists having suitable expertise in the relevant field, those who have published their own works on the subject of the article within the past three years.

3.3. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers without specifying any information about the author(s). In some cases, this information can be sent to reviewers, but only after all potential conflicts of interest have been excluded. Experts belonging to the same university department or research institution where the work presented in the article was done are not involved in the reviewing process.

3.4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscript submitted to them constitutes the intellectual property of the author(s) and is classified as confidential information. Reviewers are allowed neither to make copies of the article for their own purposes, nor to use the knowledge of the data it contains for their own benefit before it is published.

3.5. Within the agreed time frame, the reviewer should examine the article sent to him and email to the editorial office either a properly formatted review of the article or a motivated refusal to review it.

3.6. The time frame for reviewing in each individual case is set with an intention to bring an article to publication in the most expeditious way. Typically a manuscript will be reviewed within 45 days from the date of submission to the Journal. The time limit can be increased in case of the need for additional reviews and/or temporary absence of reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise. When an article is revised based on the results of the initial review, the 45-day period starts from the date when the author returns the finalized article to the editors.

3.7. Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

originality and relevance of contribution;
interest to scientists and/or practitioners;
clear and concise writing style;
adequacy of research methodology, analysis and interpretation.

3.8. The final part of a review should contain substantiated conclusions about a manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation either on the advisability of publishing it as submitted or on the need to improve or revise it, along with a list of inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author.

3.9. If a reviewer recommends an article for publication after revision/correction of errors or does not recommend it for publication, he/she should give the exact reasons for his/her decision, having provided a list of fundamental and/or technical flaws detected in the manuscript (specifying page numbers if necessary). The reviewer's comments and suggestions should be unbiased and fundamental, aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript, as far as scientific validity and methodology are concerned. The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

3.10. Original reviews are stored at the editorial office of the Journal for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or to the Ministry itself.

3.11. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the decision on whether to recommend a manuscript for publication after the peer review process is completed. If necessary, this decision can be made at an editorial meeting aimed at preparing the next issue of the Journal.

3.12. If the decision is positive, it is emailed to the author along with the information about the estimated date of publication.

3.13. If acceptance is conditional (the Journal will publish the article if the author makes changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors), the author is sent either a letter containing respective recommendations or a copy of the review with the referee’s comments (at the discretion of the editors). The article is returned to the author for revision and must be resubmitted within the period specified by the editors. Neither reviewers nor editors of the Journal discuss the comments they have made with the authors.

3.14. The resubmitted article is reviewed by the same referee or by another one, appointed by the editors.

3.15. In case the article is rejected, the editors inform the author about it, providing the reason(s) for rejection or enclosing a copy of the review, having removed the reviewer’s name and other personal data from the text.

3.16. An article not recommended for publication by a reviewer will not be accepted for reconsideration. In exceptional cases, it can be sent to another independent reviewer. In this case, the final decision is made based on the results of the two reviews.

3.17. The editorial office of the Journal does not store manuscripts not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned to authors.

3.18. In accordance with the Agreement between the National Electronic Library (NEB) and the publisher of The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, all reviews received by the Journal and signed by the expert referees are sent to the NEB at the time when the corresponding issue of the Journal is published. They are stored there in a closed access database available to authoritative experts so that they can monitor the quality of reviews.

ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

The following ethical standards should always be observed in the process of publishing research articles in the journal The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (the Journal). The Journal's policy agrees with the principles of scientific publication ethics approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR AUTHORS

Reporting standards

Authors of articles based on original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The article should provide sufficient detail and references to make research reproducible. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they submit entirely original works. If works and/or words of other authors are used, appropriate references should be provided. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple or concurrent publication

All the works authors submit to the Journal must be original. An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously.

Publishing certain kinds of articles (e.g., translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors concerned must come to an agreement on a secondary publication that must contain the same data and its interpretation as the primary work. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite all publications that have influenced the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without their explicit written permission.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that all the co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper. If the editors learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, the author is obliged to retract the work or correct the error within the shortest possible time.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EDITORS

Publication decisions

It is the responsibility of the editors to decide whether to publish an article, taking into consideration the opinions of reviewers. The decision is based on the scientific significance of the work in question.

Confidentiality

Unless there is a necessity to do so, the editors will not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to third parties, other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers and the publisher.

Vigilance over published articles

The editors presented with convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in an article are erroneous should arrange the prompt publication of a correction or retraction of the article.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR REVIEWERS

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and may also assist authors in improving their works. The publisher supports the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of an author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly and provide arguments supporting them.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify all significant published works relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also draw the attention of the editors to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which the reviewers have personal knowledge.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PUBLISHER

The publisher should follow the principles and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the Journal in performing their ethical duties under these guidelines.

The publisher should assist the editors in dealing with complaints about ethical aspects of published materials and also in communications with other journals where this is useful to editors.

The publisher should be prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Information about retracted publications

"Banking System and Real Sector of the Russian Economy: Prospects for Joint Development" by A. Arkhipov and A. Kazannikov

On October 8, 2019, the editors of The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to retract the following article: A. Arkhipov, A. Kazannikov. Banking System and Real Sector of the Russian Economy: Prospects for Joint Development. The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013, No 2, pp. 55-70.

Retraction of the article was explained by the fact that the authors had inappropriately borrowed a substantial amount of data obtained by Yury Okatov as a result of his scientific research. Original sources: Yu. Okatov. First-priority approaches to the formation of innovative strategies for the development of industrial enterprises. Ph. D. thesis in economics; 08.00.05 / Yu. Okatov; [Place of defense: Griboedov Institute of International Law and Economics]. - Moscow, 2012. - 143 pp. (https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01005480323); Yu. Okatov. First-priority approaches to the formation of innovative strategies for the development of industrial enterprises. Ph. D. thesis abstract; 08.00.05 / Yu. Okatov; [Place of defense: Griboedov Institute of International Law and Economics]. - Moscow, 2012. - 27 pp. (https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01005046176).

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

1. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the information published in the Journal and ensure its integrity rather than to punish the authors.

2. Retraction (removing an article from the Journal after publication) is a mechanism for correcting the published scientific information and alerting readers to publications that contain such serious flaws or erroneous data (as a result of honest error or research misconduct) that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon, as well as to cases of redundant publications (when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism and failing to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretation of data or recommendations on its use.

3. An article can be retracted for the following reasons:

plagiarism (if only a small part of an article, e.g. several sentences, is plagiarized, this may be rectified by citing the source correctly, so the editors discuss the situation and decide if correction would be a better option for authors and readers compared to retraction of the article);
redundant publication;
data fabrication / falsification;
major errors (e.g. misinterpretation of research findings) compromising scientific validity of the work;
an incorrect author/contributor list (not including someone who deserves to be there and/or including persons who do not meet the criteria for authorship);
failure to disclose a major conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
republishing an article without the author's consent.

4. The editors retract an article based on their own expertise or on information received from readers, organizations, etc., as well as on an official request from the author(s) having provided justification for their decision.

5. If the editors decide to retract an article based on their own expertise or on information received from readers, organizations, etc., they inform the author (the leading author in case of collective authorship) about retraction, mentioning the reasons and basis for it.

6. Having decided to retract an article, the editors specify the reason for retraction (in case of plagiarism the original sources should be properly cited) and the date of retraction. Both the article and its abstract remain unchanged on the website of the Journal, but the word RETRACTED along with the retraction date accompany the electronic version of the text, as well as its title in the table of contents. The reason for retraction is specified in the commentary to the article (in case of plagiarism the original sources are cited).

7. WIthin 30 days after the decision on retraction is made, information about retracted articles is passed to CyberLeninka (for further inclusion in the respective database) and to the Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru). Both information about the article and its full text remain on elibrary.ru but get supplemented with retraction notices. Retracted articles and references from them are excluded from the Russian Science Index and can no longer influence RSI indicators.

Plagiarism policy

From the point of view of the editors, plagiarism includes:

the unacknowledged use of any materials (including images, pictures, photographs, tables, graphs, charts and other forms of graphic representation of information) in any amount;
the use of images, pictures, photographs, tables, graphs, charts and any other forms of graphic representation of information published in scientific and popular publications without the consent of the copyright holder;
the unsanctioned use of materials whose authors or copyright holders forbid the use of their materials without special permission.

The editors do not welcome an excessive number of citations, even if properly formatted. Reviews and other articles that, for objective reasons, require more citations are treated by the editors on a case-by-case basis.

Self-citation is only allowed if correct references to all sources are provided. If the author wants to publish a large chunk of material already published elsewhere, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary. In the article, the author must also explain the reason why he had to do so.

Self-citation is allowed in the following order: conference proceedings → scientific article → monograph.

Self-citation is acceptable, within reasonable limits, in the introduction (literature review), as well as in the description of research methods and obtained results.

Self-citation is not allowed in the final part of the article, containing the conclusions and discussion of the results obtained during the study.

Citation of the Author’s dissertation. If for some reason you have not published your dissertation before defending it and posting the text online, you can publish its parts as an article. Such a publication should have the structure, logic and all the attributes of a scientific article. A work overlapping for the most part with a dissertation cannot be published in co-authorship. At the end of the abstract, indicate that the article was written based on the author's dissertation (if it has already been defended, indicate the place and year of defense).

Plagiarism check

The editors check all manuscripts submitted to the Journal for plagiarism using the Antiplagiat system (Antiplagiat.ru).

In case borrowings are detected, the editors assess them, taking into consideration the authorship of the borrowed text, the presence or absence of references and the type of source (a scientific article, a monograph, a dissertation, a book, a textbook, or a text found on the Internet without an explicit indication of the authorship).

Having analyzed these facts, the editors decide on whether it is possible to publish the article.

If the decision is negative, the editors notify the author about it via email, enclosing the list of unauthorized borrowings that have been detected.

Detecting the techniques used to artificially increase content uniqueness

The editors strongly discourage the use of any technical tricks allowing to increase the level of content uniqueness. The editorial staff has a sufficient technical and methodological base to detect such techniques.

We notify you that articles with the signs of technical modifications aimed at artificially increasing the uniqueness of content will not be published in the Journal (even after being revised).

Simultaneous submission and duplicate publication

Articles must not be under consideration elsewhere at the time of their submission to the Journal. If the material submitted by the author has already been fully or partially published earlier, the author is obliged to inform the editors about this and to justify the necessity of such a publication. In all such situations, the editors make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If any publication is found to fully or partially duplicate an article published in the Journal, editors reserve the right to withdraw (retract) such an article.

Editorial policies