RULES FOR REVIEWING OF SCHOLARY PAPERS

1. The Editorial Board of the journal «Herald of the Belgorod University of Cooperation, Economics and Law» accepts for publication the materials containing the results of the original research, formalized in the form of articles, scientific reviews, scientific revisions and comments, which correspond to the field “Economic sciences”. Already published or placed on the Internet materials as well as the materials submitted for publication to other journals are not accepted for revision.

2. The rules of submission, publication and requirements for scholarly papers formalization are given on the site and in each issue of the journal.

3. The Editorial Board of the journal carries out the reviewing of all submitted materials, corresponding to the topics with the view of their expert assessment as well as necessary scientific and stylistic edition.

4. The scientific editor sends the papers, received by the Editorial Board, for reviewing to its members – researchers, acknowledged specialists on the topic of the reviewed materials, who, as a rule, possess a scientific degree of the Doctor of Philosophy and publications on the topic of the reviewed materials during the recent three years. The list of the members of the journal’s Editorial Board is approved by the Academic Council of the university and placed on the journal’s site http://vestnik.bukep.ru/.

5. The reviews are kept by the publishing house and the editorial office for 5 years.

6. The author of the paper bears full responsibility for the authenticity of all facts, digital, graphical or any other data as well as for the accuracy of all cited texts and absence of any legal obstacles for the placement of the information.

7. Provided that all formal requirements to the materials for the publication are met, the author’s manuscript is reviewed in accordance with the existing procedure of manuscripts reviewing submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal.

8. The reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of authors and they belong to the information not allowed for publicity. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their own use. The violation of confidentiality is only allowed in case of declaration of invalidity of falsification of materials.

9. The terms of reviewing in each case are set by the Editorial Board taking into account the creation of conditions for maximally quickest publication of papers.

10. Requirements to manuscripts’ reviews.

The manuscript’s review, as a rule, should consist of three parts: general, page-by-page assessment of a manuscript, conclusion.

In the general part of the review it is necessary to provide the analysis of the factual material (authenticity, depth, actuality, newness, scientific and practical value, logics in narration and composition) and reflect the correspondence of the submitted material to the requirements of formalization of papers (Annex 1).

The second part of the review should contain a detailed list and analysis of all drawbacks of the manuscript stated by the reviewer (not exact and wrong definitions and formulations, parts of the author’s original materials, subject for exclusion, contraction, amendment or re-work). A special attention should be paid to the assessment of the usage in the manuscript of the generally accepted terminology, norms, rules, standards, orders, presences of notes and lists in the single format according to GOST P 7.0.5-2008 and GOST 7.1-2003.

The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions on the manuscript as whole, general suggestions on the further work on it. If according to a reviewer the manuscript doesn’t contain considerable drawbacks and the stated comments can be easily removed by the authors during the re-work, then the final part of the review should contain a clear recommendation on the reasonability of its submission for publication.

If according to a reviewer the publication of the given manuscript is not reasonable then it is necessary to formulate a substantiated conclusion in the final part of the review. If a manuscript needs re-work, it is necessary to state the reasonability of another reviewing after author’s re-work.

The decision on the reasonability of the publication after reviewing is taken by the chief Editor (his/her deputies) and if necessary by the Editorial Board.

11. The procedure for authors’ informing on the results of the review

The Editorial Board sends to the authors of the submitted materials copies of the review or a reasoned refusal.

On obtaining a positive review the Editorial Board informs the authors on the acceptance of the paper for publication and on the terms of its publication.

On obtaining a negative review the Editorial Board send the author a copy of the review with the suggestion to re-work the paper in accordance with the notes of the reviewer.

12. The paper, sent to the author for re-work, should be returned with corrections together with its original version within 14days since the date of receiving the review. The re-worked manuscript should be accompanied by the authors’ letter containing the answers to all remarks and explaining all amendments made in the text.

13. The papers reworked by the author are submitted for another reviewing, which is carried out according to the given Rules.

14. The decision on the reasonability of the publication after reviewing is made at the sitting of the Editorial Board while the regular issue is composed.

15. The paper delayed for more than three months or requiring additional re-work, is considered as newly submitted.

16. The Editorial Board send copies of the review to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation after a corresponding inquiry.

17. Refusal on publication:

Articles are not allowed for publication, provided that:

a)     they are formalized without taking into consideration the requirements to the materials and the rules of the scientific articles formalization;

b)     the authors of the articles do not observe the constructive comments of the reviewer;

c)    the articles with the borrowings exceeding 20% or with the share of citation from one source exceeding 10% according to the results of the Antiplagiat.ru system checking.