Peer Review
1. All submitted manuscripts undergo anti-plagiarism checking.
2. After submission, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief conducts initial screening to ensure compliance with the journal's scope and author guidelines. If a manuscript is found to be non-compliant with the requirements or the journal's standards, it will be rejected without further consideration.
3. The Economics of Science journal conducts a double-blind peer review of all manuscripts submitted for publication. Each article is evaluated by at least 2 peer reviewers. All reviewers are experts in their respective fields of science.
4. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, will send the manuscript for review to members of the journal's Editorial Board who are responsible for the relevant field of science, or to external experts. If there is no member of the Editorial Board available, or if the article comes from its member, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief will send it for review to external reviewers who are researchers and specialists in the field.
4.1. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief communicates with authors and reviewers via e-mail.
4.2. Reviewers work with articles as confidential material, strictly respecting the author's right to privacy until publication. They are not permitted to use manuscripts for personal gain without the author's written consent.
4.3. Researchers who work at the same institutions as the authors of the paper are not involved in reviewing it. Besides, each reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is an obvious conflict of interest that could affect their perception and interpretation of the manuscript.
4.4. Reviewers are required to follow the accepted editorial policy of the journal Economics of Science on compliance with ethical standards when reviewing articles, based on the international guideline of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Russian Association of Science Editors and Publishers (RASEP).
4.5. A review should include a qualified analysis of the manuscript, a fair and objective assessment, well-reasoned recommendations, and a conclusion. Reviewers should evaluate the relevance of the manuscript, its interest for the journal, and its suitability for publication based on the scope of the journal, the content of the manuscript, and its scientific level. The review may include recommendations for necessary and desirable changes, as well as suggestions for the reference list, if needed. In the final section of the review, the reviewer should draw conclusions about the material as a whole and provide recommendations regarding its publication:
- Accept the manuscript for publication.
- Accept the manuscript with minor revisions.
- Provisionally accept the manuscript with major revisions.
- Reject the article.
4.6. If the reviewer recommends revision, or does not recommend publication, the review should state the reasons for this decision.
5. The decision on the publication of an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews received. If the reviews differ, the decision is made unanimously by the Editor-in-Chief, Chair of the Editorial Board, and Deputy Editor-in-Chief. In case there are doubts about the publication, the Editorial Board may involve an additional expert to review the article.
6. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief notifies the author of the decision. The editorial decision is final.
7. Peer review is conducted confidentially for the authors of articles. The reviewer's identity is not typically disclosed to the author, although it can be shared with the reviewer's permission. With the mutual agreement of the author and reviewer, reviews may be published alongside the article.
8. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief maintains a record of all manuscripts submitted to the editorial team and presents the proposed content for the next issue to the Editor-in-Chief for approval.
9. The editorial team does not guarantee that manuscripts submitted will be published within the specified timeframe. On average, it takes approximately 42 days from submission to the editorial decision (3-7 days for initial evaluation of the manuscript, 7-10 days for securing reviewers, and 14-30 days for the actual review process).
10. Reviews are stored electronically for 5 years after the date of publication.