Regulations on peer review of scientific articles in the journal "Competitiveness in the global world: economics, science, technology"

​​

1. This regulation is aimed at ensuring the high quality of scientific materials published in the journal Competitiveness in the 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 subject matter, with the aim of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years. Articles are sent by the editor-in-chief according to the profile of scientific research 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 science who have authority in the field of scientific knowledge, which corresponds to the manuscript of the article, are involved in the review. Experts 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 steps: 1) technical verification of the article for plagiarism in the article;  2)  проведение слепого  рецензирования тремя экспертами  из членов  editorial board; 3)  the main reviewer writes a detailed review indicating the relevance, validity of the study and its pros and cons; 4) the editorial board, based on the assessments of blind review and open review, makes a decision on the advisability of publishing the article.

​

5. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are subject to copyright. The review is confidential. The author of the reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review.

 

6. The main reviewer within 15 days makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article.

 

7. The review should 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 presentation of the material,

- description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article;

- the feasibility of publishing the article.

 

8. The reviewer can:

 

- recommend an article for publication;

- recommend for publication after revision, taking into account the comments;

- do not recommend the article for publication.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.

 

9. When evaluating articles, it is necessary to pay attention to the presence in the material of the relevance of the scientific problem being solved by the author. The review should unequivocally characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, correlate the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review should be the assessment by the reviewer of the personal contribution of the author of the article to the solution of 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 on the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

 

10. Articles containing signs of both falsification of the results of scientific research, original data and information, and plagiarism -bb3b-136bad5cf58d_ ideas and achievements, the use of other people's texts without reference to the source. The originality of an article accepted for publication must be at least 80 percent.

 

11. The editorial board of the publication sends 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 the publication.

 

12. If the review of the article contains indications of the need to correct it, then the article is sent to the author for revision. The revised article is resubmitted 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 answer 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 must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry.