Rules of Reviewing Articles for "Russian Foreign Economic Bulletin"

Definition of a reviewed journal

Reviewed journal is a journal in which the majority of manuscripts is submitted for review by experts who are not members of the editorial board. The number and type of manuscripts sent for review, the number of reviewers, the procedure of reviewing and consideration of the opinions of the reviewers may vary. We inform authors about our rules, which shall be useful for both our readers and potential authors.

Should the article correspond to the subject of the Bulletin, the design requirements are met and the article is accepted for consideration by the editors, it is sent for review to at least one member of the Editorial Board and to one independent reviewer. The review process is unilaterally anonymous ("blind"), i.e. reviewers are aware of the name of the author of the article, while the authors do not know, who acts as a reviewer.

General Procedure for Reviewing

The main task of reviewers, as well as of the entire review process, is not only an expert evaluation of the quality of work, but its improvement. The review should objectively assess the scientific article, give a grounded comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review should reflect the topicality, scientific novelty and practical value of the material, reviewer’s comments and the conclusion on the possibility of publication of the article as is, revised or on non-expediency of its publication.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. Reviewer should be absolutely sure that the manuscripts submitted for review are the intellectual property of the author(s) classified as the information not subject to disclosure. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in case of reviewer’s claim on invalidity of the materials contained in the article or author’s misconduct.

Presenting a manuscript for review, authors entrust editors the results of their research work and creative effort, that may influence their reputation and career. Disclosure of the confidential details of the review violates the rights of the author of the manuscript. Editors should not disclose information concerning the manuscript (including information on its receipt, content, review process, reviewers' critical comments and the final decision) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in the case of alleged inaccuracy or falsification of materials; in all other cases confidentiality preservation is a must. The Bulletin may publish reviewers' comments together with the manuscript, subject to the consent of the authors and reviewers.

Reviewers shall reason their judgment and can recommend the editor to accept the manuscript for publication, to accept with minor corrections, to recommend a substantial revision of the manuscript or to reject it.

Reviewer of the article can not be its author (co-author), but he/she can be a research advisor of the author (s). Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their needs. They must not use in their own interests knowledge of the contents of the work before it is published.

The editor shall agree with the reviewer the deadline for submission of the review.

In each case, the deadline is determined by the editor with consideration of the most favorable conditions for the most rapid publication of articles.

The review shall be conducted confidentially. The author of the book under review shall be given the opportunity to read the text of the review if he/she does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in case of reviewer’s claim on invalidity or falsification of the materials contained in the article.

The author sends an article to the editorial board in accordance with the requirements to the scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal.

All manuscripts received by the Bulletin are sent for reviewing to one of the members of the editorial board or to a reviewer with consideration of the area of scientific research. The articles by full members and/or corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, honored scientists shall not be subject for reviewing in case such academician, corresponding member or honored scientist is the sole or the first author of publication. This policy is applicable to the articles by Doctors of Science (provided that the author is the sole and first author of publication), to the articles by the Members of Editorial Board of the Bulletin as well as to the original articles by the decision of the Editorial Board.

Assessing the article the reviewer shall consider: compliance with the topics of the Bulletin , scientific novelty and importance of the results, compliance with the rules of article preparation, validity of the results; the correct use of the results of other authors; correct references; quality of presentation and design.

At the end of the review one of the following recommendations shall be given: to advise publication in the Bulletin (as is or after follow-on revision according to the reviewer’s comments), or to advise against the publication.

The time limits for reviewing the manuscript shall not exceed 1 month from the day it is received by the reviewer.

The final decision on publication or rejection of the article, as well as on the priority of publication in the Bulletin shall be made by the Editorial Board.

Should the opinion of the Editorial Board and of the reviewer be different, the article shall be sent for another review.

The Editorial Board shall send the author(s) of the article the copy of the review (without the name of the reviewer).

The Article sent to the author(s) for revision must be returned in the amended form (in 2 copies) together with its original version as soon as possible, accompanied by the letter containing answers to all the comments and explaining all the changes made in the article.

The article delayed for more than 3 months or requiring additional revision is regarded as a newly submitted.

The author is solely responsible for the scientific content of the article and the accuracy of the data given in the references.

The Editorial Board shall e-mail the author(s) the results of the review.

After the decision on publication is made the editor shall inform the author(s) about it.

The editors shall assume no obligations on the terms of publication.

The original reviews shall be kept with the editors for five years.

The editors shall not enter into discussions with the authors about the rejected works.