Regulations of the peer-review
Peer Review procedure
of the regulation of submitting, peer reviewing and publishing of scientific articles (materials) provided for publication to the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “Business. Education. Law”
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. The present Procedure governs peer review process of the articles, materials (hereinafter – the articles) received by the editorial board of the scientific peer-reviewed journal “Business. Education. Law” (hereinafter – the journal).
1.2. Purpose of peer review is improvement of the quality of the scientific articles published in the journal; compliance with the requirements of the State Commission for academic degrees and titles to the scientific publications.
1.3. Peer review is done by the members of the editorial board, editorial council, experts appointed by the Scientific council of the institute, who are the specialists in the scientific area of the reviewed article, candidates or doctors of sciences involved in scientific research and/or teaching at the higher educational institutions.
All reviewers are outstanding specialists in the subjects of the reviewed articles having at least four-five publications in the area under research for the last three years.
Members of the editorial board and editorial council, as well as the experts, provide their written consent for the work in the journal structures. Written consent is kept at the publishing house for the entire period of operation of the member of the editorial board or editorial council.
1.4. The scientific articles sent to the editorial board of the journal and made in strict compliance with the requirements to the publication available at the journal web: http://vestnik.volbi.ru/ are permitted for reviewing.
1.5. Articles (materials) of the academicians and associate members of the RAS; manuscripts specifically prepared upon the request of the journal by the leading scientists, public characters, politicians, practicians, members of the editorial council of the journal, members of the editorial board shall be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and his deputies.
1.6. Reference and information materials, comments and opinions are not reviewed.
2. PROCEDURE OF THE ARTICLES REVIEWING
2.1. Editorial board of the journal accepts for review the articles and materials reflecting scientific opinions, results and achievements of the fundamental and theoretical and applied researches in the following areas: economic sciences (main fields), legal sciences, pedagogical sciences. Materials not complying with the listed areas of research are not accepted for review.
2.2. Hard copy and similar electronic format of the set of the documents to be sent to the journal shall include:
— original text of the article, the hard copy of which shall be signed by the author or the authors;
— questionnaire of the author(s);
— certificate of the status/place of studying (in case the author is a post-graduate student or master’s degree student);
— statement of the author for the right of use of the scientific article in the peer-reviewed journal.
Hard copies of the manuscripts shall be sent to the address of the editorial board: 400010, Volgograd, Kachintsev Street, bldg. 63, office 107; material in electronic format shall be sent to: email@example.com. Tel.: (8442) 52-62-43.
2.3. Editorial board of the journal is entitled to reject the materials in the following cases:
— non-observance by the authors of rules of the article execution;
— detection of the matching content (plagiarism);
— non-conformance of the material to the subject-matter of the scientific journal;
— negative evaluation by the reviewer of the material presented for publication;
— non-availability of the hard copy of the material;
— availability of the restrictive markings.
2.4. The article shall be accepted by the secretary in charge of the editorial board.
2.5. When article is received by the editorial board, the deputy editor-in-chief or the member of the editorial board performs express review of the article for compliance with the requirements to execution of the articles submitted to the journal, checks the article for matching content at the site antiplagiat.ru and informs the author(s) about results of express review of the article (whether it is accepted for further reviewing or rejected).
2.6. Peer review of all received articles complying with the subject-matter of the journal is done for their expert assessment, as well as for compliance with the requirements of the State Commission for academic degrees and titles to the scientific publications.
Editorial board of the journal arranges double blind review of the materials. The article is sent for review to the member of the editorial board, editorial council or the external reviewers governing the appropriate area.
Review is done by the doctors of sciences or the candidate of sciences serving as associate professors and being experts in the area under consideration.
2.7. Reviewer is appointed in accordance with the subject of the article submitted to the journal. All reviewers are outstanding experts in the subjects of the reviewed articles, are members of the dissertation councils, heads of the scientific research activities, educational institutions and their branches; they regularly publish articles and participate in the operation of the journal.
2.8. Reviewers are informed that the articles submitted to them are the private property of the authors and shall not be disclosed. Reviewing is done anonymously: reviewers do not know the author of the received article, as well as the author does not the appointed reviewers.
2.9. Reviewer shall review the article within two weeks from the date of receipt. Review report shall be sent to the editorial board by email firstname.lastname@example.org, by mail or handed over as a hard copy to the editorial board of the journal. Editorial board recommends using the typical form for review (Attachment 1).
2.10. When making the review report the expert pays attention to the urgency of the issue solved by the author, as well as on the availability of the scientific novelty. References to the results of other research are considered as the knowledge of the level of exploration of the issue. Review report shall definitely characterize theoretical and (or) applied value of the research or its absence, shall correlate the author’s conclusions with the existing scientific opinions on the subject under consideration.
The required component of the review report is assessment of the personal input of the author(s) to resolution of the examined issues. Review report shall also note compliance of the style and logic with the requirements of the scientific style; it shall also provide conclusion about accuracy and feasibility of findings (representation of practical materials used for analysis, degree of visibility of provided examples, tables and data shall be evaluated).
2.11. When reviewing the priority is given to the articles taking into account the previous publications in the journal of the same subject-matter. If required, the editorial board is entitled to recommend the author mentioning such publications in the article.
2.12. Review report shall be concluded with the total assessment of the article and the recommendation of the reviewer for publication in the journal: “The article is recommended for publication”’ or “The article is recommended for publication after further development or with regard to the comments after repeated reviewing”; or “The article is not recommended for publication”. Upon receipt of the positive review report the article is published on the first-served basis.
2.13. If reviewer recommends the article for publication after further development or with regard to the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review report shall specify the reasons of such decision clearly stating weaknesses detected in the article. If the review report contains recommendations for revision and further development of the article, the secretary in the charge of the journal shall send review report to the author (without stating the full name, title and place of work of the reviewer) proposing to consider recommendations in the new version of the article. The following comments of the reviewer shall be accepted by the author by all means: duplication of the material (the entire material or its significant part was published in the other publications); absence or unreliability of conclusions. The further developed article shall be submitted by the author to the editorial board of the journal, shall be reviewed according to the standard procedure and shall be sent for repeated review together with the author’s response to each item of the comments. In case of the negative review report, the editorial board shall send the reasonably justified rejection of publication to the authors.
2.14. Upon request of the RF Ministry of education and science the editorial board shall provide the review reports of the articles.
2.15. Upon receipt of all documents required for publication of the article and review reports the Editor-in-chief shall make final decision about publication of the article based on the recommendations of the reviewers, scientific value of the article, and compliance with the journal subject-matter. The article rejected by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board can be accepted for repeated review after resolution of the provided comments. The editorial board shall inform the author about the decision of the editorial board.
2.16. Review reports of the articles shall be kept by the journal for 5 years.
Editorial board does not keep the articles not accepted for publication. The articles accepted for publication are not sent back to the authors. The articles received negative evaluation of the reviewer are not either published or sent back to the author.
The Procedure was discussed and accepted at the mutual meeting of the editorial board and the editorial council of the scientific peer reviewed journal “Business. Education. Law” on January 15, 2010.
The Procedure was revised and approved at the mutual meeting of the editorial board and the editorial council of the scientific peer reviewed journal “Business. Education. Law” on May 17, 2017.