• English (United Kingdom)
  • Russian (CIS)
Peer review process

The editorial office of Journal of New Economy adopts the following procedure for reviewing the submitted papers:

1. The editorial office is responsible for primary review of the submitted papers and assesses papers’ correspondence to the remit of the journal (whether or not a subject matter of a paper is within the scope of the journal) and the formatting requirements, as well as runs plagiarism check using anti-plagiarism software. Should the paper meet the formatting requirements, correspond to the remit, and be original (similarity index should be less than 25%), it is entered in the register of incoming papers. Otherwise, the paper is not allowed further examination.

The editorial office informs authors about the results of the primary review.

2. A paper submitted by an author (authors) is passed by the editorial office to a reviewer who is a qualified specialist in the field in compliance with the decision of the chief editor (deputy chief editor) and responsible editor of a journal. Additional peer review may be arranged in case of an interdisciplinary or disputable character of the paper submitted.

3. Peer review is held confidentially.

4. The journal uses a double-blind peer review: a manuscript is given to the reviewer without authors’ names and any other details enabling identification of the authors; the results of the review are provided to authors without reviewers’ names, job titles, signatures and any other details enabling identification of the reviewers.

5.  The reviewer is notified that the manuscript given is the intellectual property of an author (authors). The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript so as to use it for their own needs or transferring to a third party. The reviewer must obey the ethical rules concerning scientific publications set out in the editorial office.

6. Manuscript review period is not more than 14 days from receipt of the manuscript by the reviewer.

7. A reviewer may give three types of recommendations about a paper: to recommend it for publication, not to recommend it for publication, to recommend it for publication after making corrections to the paper.

If the paper is or not recommended for publication, the reviewer must present a reasoned critical opinion where to justify the decision.

If the reviewer suggests correcting the paper, the remarks must be clearly formulated and the necessity for one more check must be unequivocally stated in the review.

8. Should a reviewer give a negative review, the editorial office can ultimately reject the paper.

9. If the reviewer states the necessity for corrections, an author may partially or completely agree with the reviewer’s opinion, correct the paper and present the manuscript accompanied by an answer to the remarks again. In this case, the date of the paper resubmission is considered the date of its submission (for further actions see Item 2). The reviewer does not enter into correspondence with authors.

Otherwise, the author may withdraw the paper.

The author must inform the editorial office about any decision taken.

The period for paper correction must not exceed one month from the date of sending a review to an author. Should the correction period exceed one month, the paper is considered to be withdrawn.

10. Requirements to the content of a review of a paper:

10. 1. A review must present an expert analysis of a manuscript, its objective reasoned assessment as well as justified recommendations. The review is written in the form provided by the editorial office.

10. 2. Particular attention should be paid to:

– general examination of academic level, terminology, structure and style of the paper, topicality of the issue;

–        scientific rigour, correspondence of the research methods, methodologies, recommendations and findings to modern achievements of science and practice;

–        relevance of the volume of the manuscript generally and of its elements (text, tables, figures, references); their correspondence to the theme of the paper;

–        place of the paper under review among other works in this field: novelty, originality or duplication of works of other authors or earlier publications of the same author (partially or completely;

–        correspondence of the title, keywords, abstract to the content of the paper;

–        inaccuracies and mistakes made by an author.

11. The decision about paper publication is taken by the editorial board and approved by the chief editor (deputy chief editor) and the responsible editor.

12. The editorial office has a right to reject a paper if:

a) the paper is not formatted according to the requirements and the authors refuse to correct it;

b) authors of a paper do not react to constructive criticism of a reviewer;

c) the paper does not contain any new information or is unrelated to academic activity.

13. The editorial office informs authors about the decision taken. An author of rejected manuscript is provided with a copy of a review. The editorial office does not enter into discussion with the authors about the rejected papers.

14. The originals of reviews are stored in the editorial office within five years from the date of their signing by reviewers.