Scientific and practical journal
Regional Economy

Regulation on Peer-Reviewing

  1. This provision regulates the procedure of peer-reviewing of articles received by the editorial board of scientific-practical journal of economic sciences «Regional Economy».
  2. Scientific articles registered by the editorial board of the Journal are subject to peer-reviewing by highly qualified specialists in the relevant scientific directions. They have scientific degrees of doctors or candidates of sciences as well as research and publications in relevant specialty and subject. If necessary, the head of Journal’s editorial board additionally engages specialists by the relevant specialty in case that a reviewer and an author have different viewpoints – the article is sent to the third reviewer and is additionally considered at the meeting of Journal’s editorial board.
  3. The reviewers are chosen by the head of Journal’s editorial board and the deputies.
  4. Peer-reviewing procedure is anonymous for both a reviewer and the authors and is performed by two independent reviewers (double «blind» peer-review).
  5. All the reviewers should adhere to the requirements to ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.
  6. Scientific articles structured in strict correspondence with the requirements to publications, which have undergone the primary control by the editorial board, are accepted for peer-reviewing.
  7. A reviewer should consider an article within 10–14 days from the moment of its receiving and send the review to the Journal’s editorial board in person or by e-mail. In case if it is impossible to review an article, a reviewer sends motivated refusal within three days from the day of receiving the letter from the Journal’s editorial board. The peer-reviewing period is defined on a case-by-case basis considering creation of conditions for the earliest possible publication of an article, but shouldn’t exceed two weeks.
  8. A review covers the following issues: whether an article contains the material that justifies its publication in the Journal (author’s personal contribution, relevance and novelty of an article); whether the research material is of practical importance; whether the title of an article corresponds to the purpose of the article and the author’s conclusions; whether there is the need of extraordinary publishing of an article with the view to specify the priority; whether the conclusions provided by authors are substantiated; whether the quality of an article, references, design of graphic materials and size of abstracts correspond to the requirements of scientific publication; what needs to be reduced (text, figures, tables, references); whether an author adheres to scientific ethics, in particular if there is no plagiarism in the article under review.
  9. A reviewer’s decision structured according to the form provided by the editorial board should be signed by the reviewer, indicating the job place, position, scientific degree, academic degree of the latter and the date of reviewing.
  10. In case that the review provides comments and recommendations, an article with an anonymous review copy is sent to authors for further consideration. In the course of articles’ modification according to the reviewers’ comments, an author marks the altered text, added sentences, tables, figures or other added material in the modified electronic version of the article for quick verification of reviewer’s comments that were taken into account.
  11. After an author (the authors) of an article has modified it according to the comments, the materials are sent to the reviewer to verify the introduced changes and additions. After the editorial board has received the reviewer’s decision about recommendation of publishing of modified articles, the editorial board of the Journal approves the decision on forming of the Journal’s editions.
  12. The Journal’s editorial board keeps the originals of reviews for two years.

Web Master P. Popadiuk