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

The Procedure of the Peer Review of Scientific Papers in Academic Journals of the Ural State University of Economics

The Procedure of the Peer Review of Scientific Papers in Academic Journals of the Ural State University of Economics prescribes the procedure of independent examination of the submitted scientific papers to assess the relevance of their further publication in Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta (Journal of the Ural State University of Economics) and Upravlenets (The Manager) issued by FGBOU VPO “Ural State University of Economics”.

1. The papers are submitted to and collected by the editorial office of the scientific journals of FGBOU VPO “Ural State University of Economics”. 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. Should the paper meet the formatting requirements and correspond to the remit, 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 primary review.

2. A paper submitted by an author (authors) is passed by the editorial office to a reviewer responsible for particular research field, and (or) to experts – the scientists and specialists in this 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 interdisciplinary or disputable character of the paper submitted.

The paper is given for peer review within the 14 days after the reviewer was determined.

3. Peer review is held confidentially.

4. The journals use 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 to him is the intellectual property of an author (authors). The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript so as to use it for his own needs or transferring to a third party.

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 according to the reviewer’s remarks. If the paper is 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 stated in the review.

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 such case, the date when corrected work is returned is considered to be the date of the paper submission (for further actions see Article 2).

If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s remarks, s/he must provide a reasoned response to the remarks and specify that s/he insists on the publication of the initial version of the paper. Disputable cases are considered by the editorial board.

Otherwise, the author may withdraw the paper.

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

The second negative conclusion on the paper is the basis for its final rejection.

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

8.1 A review must present an expert analysis of a manuscript, its objective reasoned assessment as well as justified recommendations.

8.2 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.

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

10. 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 by improving paper or proving a more convincing reasoning of their position;

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

11. The editorial office informs authors about the decision taken. An author of rejected manuscript is provided with a copy of review.

12. The manuscripts are not given back to authors.

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