Regulations on the review of scientific
articles in the journal “Competitiveness in a global world: economics, science, technology”
1. This provision is aimed at ensuring the high quality of scientific materials published in the journal “Competitiveness in a Global World: Economics, Science, Technology”. The editorial policy is aimed at publishing articles that are distinguished by scientific novelty, relevance, and practical significance.
2. The publication reviews all materials received by the editorial office that correspond to its topics for the purpose of their expert assessment. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the materials being reviewed and have published on the subject of the article being reviewed over the past 3 years. Articles are sent by the editor-in-chief according to the scientific research profile for review by one of the members of the editorial board or an independent expert on the recommendation of a member of the editorial board.
3. Scientists, doctors (as a rule) and candidates of sciences who have authority in the field of scientific knowledge to which the article manuscript corresponds, are involved in the review. Specialists working in the same research institution or higher educational institution where the work was performed are not involved in the review.
4. The process of reviewing and accepting an article for publication consists of the following stages: 1) technical verification of the article for the presence of plagiarism in the article; 2) conducting a blind review by three experts from the members of the editorial board; 3) the main reviewer writes a detailed review indicating the relevance, validity of the study and its advantages and disadvantages; 4) the editorial board, based on the assessments of blind review and open review, decides on the advisability of publishing the article.
5. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are subject to copyright. Reviews are conducted confidentially. The author of the work under review is given the opportunity to familiarize himself with the text of the review.
6. The main reviewer makes a conclusion within 15 days about the possibility of publishing the article.
7. The review must indicate:
- compliance of the content of the article with its title;
- assessment of the novelty of the problem considered in the article, relevance and practical significance, the absence of signs of falsification of scientific results and plagiarism;
- compliance of the article with modern achievements in the field of science under consideration;
- assessment of the form of material delivery,
- description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article;
- the feasibility of publishing the article.
8. The reviewer can:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend for publication after revision, taking into account comments;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must indicate the reasons for this decision.
9. When evaluating articles, it is necessary to pay attention to the relevance of the scientific problem being solved by the author in the material. The review should unambiguously characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research and correlate the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the personal contribution of the author of the article to solving the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as to obtain a conclusion about the reliability and validity of the conclusions.
10. Articles containing signs of falsification of scientific research results, source data and information, and plagiarism - presentation of other people's ideas and achievements as one's own, use of other people's texts without reference to the source - will not be accepted for publication. The originality of an article accepted for publication must be at least 80 percent.
11. The editors of the publication send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials no later than 3 days from the date of the decision of the editorial board on publication.
12. If the review of an article contains indications of the need for correction, then the article is sent to the author for revision. The revised article is re-submitted for review.
13. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editors of the journal. The article may be sent for re-review. The original review remains in the editorial archive for five years.
14. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and editorial office of the journal for 5 (five) years. At the request of the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, reviews are mandatory provided to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or the Ministry.