Article review procedure
Regulations on peer-reviewing of research papers
1. The paper is accepted for review only on condition it complies with the requirements adopted to the author’s original articles (papers), posted on the website of the journal at http://www.uptp.ru/ in the page For Authors.
2. A copy of the paper carefully proofread by the author (co-authors), information about the author (authors) (filled in questionnaire), a letter addressing the Editorial Board, an abstract in Russian and English, a list of keywords in Russian and English are sent to the email address of the Editorial Board. A scientific paper submitted by post-graduates and applicants for the degree of Candidate of Sciences in Economics should be accompanied by a review of an expert of relevant scientific profile (Doctor of Sciences, Professor).
3. The paper is registered by the executive secretary in the book of incoming papers with indication of the entry data, paper title, the author’s (authors’) first name (names), patronymic and last name (names), his/her/their affiliation. The paper is assigned an individual registration number. The data above is also added to the data base.
4. The editor-in-chief submits the paper for review to an Editorial Council member supervising the given line of research (rubric). In case the Editorial Council member is absent or the paper is authored by a member of the Editorial Council, the editor-in-chief submits the paper for external reviewing.
5. The journal reviews, for expert evaluation, all articles received by the Editorial Board which are in line with the remit of the journal. All reviewers are acknowledged experts in the theme line of papers to be reviewed, and in the last three years have related publications on the area of research of the paper subject for a review.
6. The reviewing follows the double-blind principle, i.e., is anonymous: neither the names of the authors nor those of the reviewers are disclosed to either side.
7. The reviewer should review the article during one month counting from the moment of its receipt and send to the Editorial Board (by email, regular mail) either a substantiated refusal to review it or his/her review.
8. The Editorial Board sends copies of the reviews to the authors of submitted articles or a substantiated refusal.
9. The Editorial Board recommends a standard form for reviewing. The reviewer can recommend the paper to be published, or recommend it to be published after upgrading with remarks considered, or not recommend the paper for publishing.
10. In case there is a significant amount of the reviewer’s critical remarks, but if the general recommendation is positive, the paper can be treated by the category of polemical and be published as debatable (in the Viewpoint rubric).
11. When papers are evaluated by the reviewers, attention should be paid to the topicality of the scientific problem handled by the author. The review should univocally characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research, correlate the author’s conclusion and existing scientific concepts. The reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration must be a necessary element of the review. It is expedient to note in the review the correspondence of style, logic and apprehensibility on the one hand and the scientific character of the paper on the other, and also get insight into the authenticity and validity of the conclusions made.
12. After obtaining the reviews the Editorial Council at its regular session discusses the articles already submitted, and adopts its final resolution about them, proceeding from the assessment of reviews, which either opt to publish the articles or refuse it. Following the adopted decision, a letter is sent on behalf of the editor-in-chief or the executive secretary of the journal to the author/authors (per email, regular mail).
13. The paper submitted by the author to the Editorial Board, after he has complied with remarks made, is examined according to the standard procedure. The entry date of the new version of the article is marked in the registration journal.
14. Reviews remain deposited for 5 years in the archive of the publishing house and the journal’s Editorial Board.
15. The Editorial Board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in case the journal’s Editorial Board gets a request therefor.
Approved and recommended for execution by the Editorial Board
of the journal Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management ,
November 11, 2013
A.A.Khachaturyan, Editor-in-chief of the journal Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management (Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya), Dr. (Econ.), Professor