| 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.
