Procedure of reviewing manuscripts,
submitted to the editorial board of the “Economic Strategies” magazine

Approved by the editor-in-chief of the Economic Strategies magazine,
Doctor of Economics, Professor A.I. Ageev (as amended on August 03, 2020)

  1. Articles, received by the editorial board of the “Economic Strategies” magazine, are subject to reviewing.

  2. The author sends an article to the editorial board of the “Economic Strategies” magazine in compliance with the information for the authors, “Requirements to articles and their forms”, published on the magazine’s website.

  3. Upon receiving the editorial board assigns a registration number to an article.

  4. All manuscripts, submitted to the “Economic Strategies” magazine, are reviewed by specialists of the relevant scientific profile (Doctors of Science), i.e. by experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials who have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.

  5. Presence of a significant share of reviewer’s critical remarks with a general positive recommendation makes it possible to classify the material as polemical and to publish it by way of scientific discussion.

  6. Not reviewed are:

    • articles of Academicians and Corresponding Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences in case if Academician or Corresponding member is the only or the first of the publication’s authors;

    • articles which have passed presentation at the scientific, scientific-technical, scientific-methodological and methodical councils of research institutions and universities, and having a written decision of the Council with recommendation for publication.

  7. Reviewing cannot be executed by professionals working in the same research institution or a higher education institution where the work was performed.

  8. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and are considered the information not subject to disclosure.

  9. The reviewing is confidential (double blind peer review). Author of the work under review gets an opportunity to get acquainted with the text of the review.

  10. Reviewer within 21 days takes a decision on the possibility of publishing the article.

  11. The review should specify:

    • compliance of the article’s content with its title;

    • opinion on the novelty of the problem discussed in the article, the relevance and practical significance;

    • conformity of the article with modern achievements in the given field of science;

    • evaluation of the format of material presentation;

    • description of the article’s advantages and disadvantages;

    • expediency of the article publication.

  12. Editorial board via e-mail communicates the review results to the author not later than 21 days after the review.

  13. If the article’s review contains indications to correct it, then the article is sent to the author for revision. Article sent by the author to the editorial office after execution of the comments raised is considered in the general order.

  14. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion the author has the right to present a reasoned response to the magazine editorial board. The article can be sent for re-reviewing.

  15. The final decision on publication’s expediency after peer review is taken by the chief editor.

  16. In case of positive opinion the chief editor determines the order of publications, depending on the topic themes of the magazine issues.

  17. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.

  18. The editorial board is bound to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.