Procedure for reviewing papers

Review of the articles sent by the authors for publication in Bulletin of South Ural State University, Series “Economics and Management” is performed in accordance with the following rules.

1) The publication reviews all materials received by the editorial office that correspond to its subject matter, with the aim of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed articles and have publications within the last 3 years on the problems of the peer-reviewed article. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years. 2) Terms of reviewing are no more than 4 weeks. 3) The editorial board of the publication sends comments or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the materials submitted for publication, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office of the publication. 4) Document flow in the review process: – Articles prepared in accordance with the requirements for the design of articles intended for publication in the journal “Bulletin of South Ural State University, Series “Economics and Management”. – The article passes the input control for compliance with the topics of scientific specialties in the field of economic sciences, requirements for structure, sufficiency of sources and design. The decision on the inconsistency of the article with the subject and requirements of the journal can be made by the editors based on the results of the initial review of the article. - The next step after the input (primary control) is to send the article for review to a specialist in the relevant field (hereinafter referred to as the reviewer), who has a doctorate in science. A member of the editorial board of the journal cannot act as a reviewer. The term of reviewing is from two to four weeks from the moment the work is received by the reviewer. Reviewing is carried out confidentially, without indicating the names of the authors or other information that allows the authors to be identified. Reviews are provided to the authors of the manuscript without indicating the name, position, place of work and signature of the reviewer. If the reviewer indicated the need to improve the article, the author takes into account the comments, reworks and re-submits the article no later than one week, the date of receipt by the editorial office is the date of return of the revised manuscript. 5) The review provides a description of the article, which reveals the following points:  degree of relevance of the research and tasks solved by the author;  novelty and adequacy of the proposed methods, comparison of the materials given by the author with the closest analogues, assessment of the conformity of methods, solutions and results obtained with the tasks set in the article;  completeness of information about the development of a scientific problem and the use of literary sources to substantiate scientific provisions,  degree of practical significance of the results;  degree of structuring, consistency, content content of the provisions of a scientific article (the volume of the article is indicated);  style, literacy of presentation, quality of drawings, informativeness of graphs, tables;  comments of the reviewer are indicated (if any);  general conclusion (recommended for publication, recommended with modifications, not recommended, does not correspond to the profile of the journal). 6) The editor-in-chief makes a preliminary decision to accept or reject the manuscript based on the reviewer's review, within a period of not more than a week from the receipt of the review, the editorial board considers the reviewer's review and makes a reasoned decision on the possibility (impossibility) of publishing the article. The editorial board sends comments or information about the editorial decision to the author. If revision is necessary, the author submits a revised version in accordance with the reviewer's comments. The reasoned decision of the editorial board is communicated to the authors of the article within a week after its adoption. 7) The final date of receipt of the work to the editorial office is the date of receipt of the manuscript, finalized in accordance with the comments of the reviewer. In case of unreasonable refusal of the author to take into account the recommendations of the reviewer and finalize the manuscript, the article is removed from consideration. The authors may, in writing, justify the refusal regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the reviewer. In this case, the explanatory letter of the authors is sent to the reviewer, who agrees or disagrees with the authors of the article. If the reviewer disagrees with the authors and there are meaningful comments, the article is not published, about which the authors are notified by an official letter with the wording about the impossibility (inappropriateness) of publishing the article in its present form.