Где купить нашу продукцию

Теперь наш журнал можно купить в одном из крупнейших книжных магазинов


Наш журнал на eLIBRARY.ru

Вниманию читателей, теперь можно скачать полнотекстовую версию журнала


Rambler's Top100

Poraydok recenzirovaniay

Главная » Для авторов » Poraydok recenzirovaniay

                        Order of manuscripts peer reviewing coming to editorial office of scientific

                          and analytical magazine"Burning problems of socio-economic Russia development"  

1.1. This Regulation on scientific articles peer reviewing determines the order and procedure of reviewing of author's final articles manuscript (materials) which came to the editorial office of magazine "Burning problems of socio-economic Russia development" (hereinafter referred to as Magazine).

1.2. Peer reviewing (scientific assessment) of scientific articles manuscripts in the Magazine editorial office is carried out for the purpose of provision and supporting high scientific-theoretical level of publication and also for the purpose of selecting the most valuable and actual (perspective) scientific papers.

1.3. All materials provided for the publication in the Magazine are subject to peer reviewing.

1.4. There are the following basic concepts in this Regulation:

Author – is the person or the group of persons (writing team), participating in creation of article by results of scientific research.

Editor-In-Chief – is the person heading the editorial board and making final decisions on production and the Magazine issuing.

Executive Secretary of an editorial office – is the expert organizing and controlling intra editorial planning work, timely and high-quality preparation of the Magazine materials for editing.

Plagiarism – is the deliberate authorship appropriation of another person's scientific and artistic works, another person's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can be violation of the authoring and legal, patent legislation and as such can entail the legal responsibility.

Editor – is the representative of scientific magazine or publishing house who is carrying out the materials preparation for the publication, and also supporting communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

Editorial Board – is the consultative body from authority figures group which helps the Editor-In-Chief to choose, prepare and assess the works for issuing.

Reader – is the expert who is acting on behalf of scientific magazine or publishing house and carrying out scientific expertise of authoring materials for the purpose of determination of their publication possibility.

Peer reviewing – is the procedure of reviewing and expert assessment by readers of the scientific article offered to the publication for the purpose of determination of its publication feasibility, its merits and demerits detection that is important for enhancement of the manuscript by the author and editorial office.  

1. Order of primary article reviewing  

1.1. The magazine editorial board takes cognizance of articles and materials reflecting scientific views, results and achievements of researches in the field of social and economic sciences on primary branches: 08.00.12. Accounting, statistics; 08.00.05. Economy and management of the national economy; 08.00.10. Finance, circulation and credit; 08.00.01. Economic theory. The materials which aren't corresponding to the listed subject domains topics aren't taken cognizance.

1.2. Materials are accepted by editorial office only by e-mail apdr@bk.ru in the following view: - carefully read article copy that hadn’t been published earlier anywhere and issued according to the requirements to publications, containing in-articles bibliographic list; - summary (brief description of article subject scope) – 150–250 words, keywords – 8–10 words and phrases. The translation of information about the author, summaries, article keywords and bibliography list is carried out by forces of the magazine editorial office; - publication request (Appendix 1).

1.3. Article materials shall be conducted on an open basis. Existence of a restrictive signature stamp gives occasion to the material open publication refusal.

1.4. The authors’ notification message about materials receiving is carried out by the responsible secretary in 5-day-long period.

1.5. The scientific article manuscript which came to the magazine editorial office is considered by the responsible secretary regarding completeness of a packet of the submitted documents and compliance of the manuscript (article) to the requirements of edition, to magazine profile and rules of design. In case of non-compliance with conditions of the publication the article can be sent back to the author for revision.

1.6. Article corresponding to the magazine profile and publication requirements is registered by the executive secretary in a log-book of the manuscripts which came to edition stating the date of entry, article’s name, author(s) full name, place of author(s) work and then it goes for reviewing.  

2. Manuscripts reviewing practice and procedures  

2.1. All articles received by the magazine editorial office pass the mandatory reviewing (an expert estimation).

2.2. The scientists having recognized authority and working in knowledge domain to which the manuscript content belongs are involved in reviewing. The reader shall have a Doctor's or Candidate of Sciences Academic Degree, some scientific publications on the subject of reviewed article within the last 3 years.

2.3. The magazine has three-level system of article reviewing: The 1st level – article text verification for the presence of the borrowed text – it is obligatory for all articles. The magazine editorial office checks all articles through the Anti-Plagiarism system. In case the text originality is lower than 85% (at the same time the borrowings cannot make more than 7% of one source) the article is sent to the author for correcting with the corresponding justification. The borrowings from the student's works websites are not allowed; The 2nd level – open reviewing – the review submitted by the author at his desire or according to the additional requirement of the magazine editorial office; The 3rd level – unilateral reviewing – is obligatory for all articles. The reader estimates the article regarding the relevance of a subject and scientific novelty, and also its structure and written reproduction style. All remarks and feedbacks to the article are made out in the review. If the remarks made by the reader are removable, then the article is sent back to the author for revision. The magazine editorial office reserves the right to refuse the publication to the author who wished to disregard remarks of the reader. The reader has the right to carry out an additional inspection on use of borrowings in the publication text by a selective fragmenting of the text parts and check through available Internet search systems.

2.4. The reader has to analyze the sent article in established periods and send properly issued review, or motivated refusal of reviewing to the editorial office by e-mail.

2.5. Reviewing terms in each individual case are defined taking into account the arrangement of conditions for the most operational article publication, but no more than 2 weeks from the moment of obtaining the application for the publication by the magazine editorial office. The term can be increased in case of need for the additional reviewing and/or temporary absence of the field-specific reader.

2.6. Following the results of reviewing the reader submits one of the following decisions for consideration of the magazine editors and editorial board: -    to recommend the article for publication; -    to recommend the article for publication after remarks correcting/removing; -    not to recommend the article for publication.

2.7. If the reader recommends the article for publication after remarks correcting/removing or does not recommend the article for publication, the specific reasons of such decision with the accurate formulation of the content-related and/or mental deficiencies revealed in the manuscript with the indication of particular pages should be specified in the review if it is necessary. The reader remarks and feedbacks should be objective and principal, focused on increase of scientific and methodical level of the manuscript.

2.8. Materials reviewing presented to the magazine editorial office is carried out with confidentiality compliance, and the reader name is not reported to the author(s).

2.9. Originals of reviews are stored in the magazine editorial office within 5 years. According to the inquiries of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science) the reviews are provided in a mandatory manner to the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles and/or to the Ministry of Education and Science.

2.10. For the publication of articles of post-graduate students and applicants of candidate of science degree the magazine editors and editorial board have the right to claim the recommendation from the specialized department in addition to the above-stated reviews that, however, does not exclude a usual reviewing order.  

3. Decision for publication  

3.1. After obtaining reviews at the scheduled meeting of the editorial board the question of the received articles is considered and on the readers conclusions basis the final decision for the article publication or its refusal is made. The editorial board decision is made by a simple majority of votes. In case of equality of votes the editor-in-chief vote is decisive.

3.2. At the final decision on the article adoption or its refusal for publication the magazine editorial board pays attention to relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author. The review has to characterize unambiguously the theoretical or applied significancy of research, correlate the author's conclusions to the existing scientific concepts. The necessary element of the review is the assessment by the reader of the article author personal contribution to the solution of the considered problem. It is expedient to note in the review the compliance of style, logic and availability of a written reproduction to the material scientific character, and also reliability and validity of conclusions (the representativeness of the practical material attracted to the analysis, illustrative degree of the examples, tables, quantitative data etc. given by the author is estimated). The review comes to the end with the general assessment of article and with the recommendation on the publication, completion or the reasoned material non-acceptance.

3.3. On the basis of the decision made, the executive secretary sends an e-mail letter with the article general assessment and with the final decision about the materials which are presented by author(s).

3.4. If the article can be published after its follow-on revision and implementation of corrections, than there are some recommendations about remarks correcting/removal in the letter. The magazine readers and editors do not get into arguments with article authors concerning the made remarks.

3.5. The article sent by author(s) to the editorial office after remarks correcting/removal passes repeated reviewing from the same reader or from another one – appointed at the discretion of editorial office.

34.6. In case the article has an essential share of reader critical remarks but general positive recommendation, the editorial board can designate the material as the polemical and publish it in the scholarly dispute manner.

3.7. In case of the article non-acceptance from publication, the magazine editorial office sends to the author motivated refusal within five working days. The article which is not recommended for the publication by the reader is not accepted to the reconsideration.


Appendix 1


Вход для пользователей:

Пользователь: Пароль:
Забыли пароль?


© "Издательская Торговая Компания "Наука - Бизнес - Паритет"
телефон издательства:(495) 960-81-08
адрес издательства:г. Москва, ул.Филевская 2-ая, д. 7/19, корп. 6
телефон редакции: (495) 960-81-08

Poraydok recenzirovaniay