Peer Review Process
*Review procedure involves checking for plagiarism, verification of compliance the article title and content, check the content of the article (more detail)
1. Deadline 4 weeks
2. Once you submit your article, it will be sent for review.
3. Get response from reviewers. If adjustment is then necessary to take them into account, and return an e-mail
4. If no adjustments or fixed all the comments made by the reviewers, the article goes on editing
Peer – review process
The review procedure is anonymous both for reviewer and for the author(s) and is performed by two independent reviewers. Editorial Board guarantees anonymity of reviewers.
The peer-reviewing involves domestic and foreign experts. Peer-reviewers are usually selected randomly based on their current load and with their consent.
Open Access Policy
Screening for plagiarism policy
Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for plagiarism, by the UNICHECK system.
Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to properly judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:
• An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified through comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
• Substantial copying implies for an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.
This journal uses LOCKSS system for distributed archiving content published in numerous libraries and information centers. Libraries participating in the LOCKSS project ensure long-term storage of comprehensive log files and automatic restoration of corrupted data.
Reasons for refusal
• Borrowing without specifying a source
• The article was already published in another edition (including electronic editions and Internet).
• The article is framed in non-compliance with the requirements
• A significant discrepancy in links to text.
• Absence or incompleteness of any component of metadata / contact information / postal address
• Absence of a review (recommendation, assignment, reference) of the scientific adviser, certified with a signature and seal (only for authors that have no academic degree).
• Absence of UDC / JEL
• Absence of the list of references.
• Insufficient volume of abstract (less than 0.5 pages)
• Insufficient volume of the list of references (less than 8 entries).
• Categorical negative conclusion of a reviewer.
Reconsideration of article and response to reviewer’s comments
For repeated viewing of Your document and respond to comments of the reviewers:
– Please note all comments provided by the editor and reviewer;
– Describe any changes in Your article in response to the letter;
– Do all additional tests that are recommended by the reviewer (if You are sure that these changes will not make Your article better, give a detailed justification, why You think so);
– In a reverse letter separately describe all the moments in which You agree with the reviewer and did not agree;
– Provide a polite and scientific justification of all the points with which You disagree;
– Clearly indicate all changes to Your documents that You have made (highlight);
– Return the revised manuscript and a letter back within the period prescribed by the editor.
The refusal to publish
The author can choose another journal in the following cases:
– the editor responded that the subject work does not meet the scope of the journal,
– editor to reject the manuscript without the right of re-granting,
– the manuscript was given failure even after answering all the corrections and comments of the reviewer,
– was rejected by two reviewers.
If the review process of the manuscript takes much more time than is necessary for this journal, and editors can speed up the process, in this case, it is very important to notify the editor about what You take away from the wording of the manuscript, before submitting it to another journal.
Publication ethics and unfair practice in connection with the publication
The principles of professional ethics in the work of the editor and publisher
In its activities, the editor is responsible for publication of author’s works that requires compliance with the following fundamental principles:
– At the time of adoption of the decision on the publication the editor of the scientific journal is guided by reliability of data presentation and scientific importance of the work.
– An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.
– Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
– The editor should not allow the information to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.
– The editor together with the publisher should not leave unanswered complaints concerning the considered manuscripts or published materials as well as for the identification of conflict situations to take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.
Ethical principles in the activities of the reviewer
Reviewer provides scientific expertise of copyright material, so his actions should be impartial, in compliance with the following principles:
– Manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document that cannot be transmitted for familiarization or discussion to third parties, does not have any permission from the editors.
– The reviewer must give objective and reasoned assessment of study results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
– Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for personal purposes reviewer.
The reviewer who has not, in his opinion, qualified to assess the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization should inform the editor with a request to exclude him from the process of reviewing this manuscript.
The principles that should guide the author of scientific publications
The author (or group of authors) realizes his primary responsibility for novelty and validity of scientific research results, which implies respect for the following principles:
– The authors should provide reliable research results. Advance erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
– Authors must guarantee that the results of a study described in a submitted manuscript is completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be furnished with the obligatory indication of the author and source. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including unregistered quotes, appropriation of other people’s research are unethical and unacceptable.
– It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons somehow influenced the course of the study. In particular, this article must be submitted references to the work, which had a meaning during the research.
– Authors should not submit to the journal the manuscript that was submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as articles already published in another publication.
– Co-authors of the article should include all persons who have made a significant contribution to the study. Among the sponsors is unacceptable to designate persons who did not participate in the research.
– If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of reviewer or after its publication, it must as soon as possible to inform the editorial Board.
All reviewers shall stick to requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics with respect to ethics in scientific publications and to be objective and impartial.
Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
• Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).