Welcome to our site!


The Editorial Board of the Journal informs the scientific community about organizational changes and reformatting the procedure of enlightening the results of scientific research of the authors.
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics (the Founder) agrees with the policies and procedures of Consulting and Publishing Limited Liability Company «Business-Perspectives» (Publisher) and accepts them as the basis for all activities in its part of the Journal publication process. 
The Founder transforms all the websites of the Journal (with the content of the articles in archive) and provides an accessible and relevant page on the University's website with the main information about the Journal, its policy, aims, editorial board, editorial ethics, editorial procedure and hyperlink to the Publisher's website, and the Publisher adapts all information about the Journal to its own policies and procedures.

GO TO THE PUBLISHER'S WEBSITE


The update of this site discontinued in September 2018 

PROVISIONS
 OF THE REVIEW OF ARTICLES,
 WHICH ARE RECEIVED BY THE EDITORIAL OFFICE
 OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
 "ECONOMICS OF DEVELOPMENT"

Reviewer Instruction Reviewer Instruction Form

GENERAL PROVISIONS


All the articles, except for reviews and informational notifications, which are received by the editorial board, are reviewed. The goal of the review is to promote a strict selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and to make concrete recommendations for their improvement The procedure of reviewing is focused on the most objective assessment of the scientific article’s content, identification of its compliance with the magazine. Also reviewing provides a comprehensive analysis of advantages and disadvantages of article materials. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current economic problems and tasks are published. The degree of compliance with the rules of preparing the articles and essays for publication in a scientific journal "Economics of Development" is separately taken into account.

To improve the quality of reviewing process independent experts are involved. They provide their opinions in a written form. According to the journal editorial policy the reviewing is anonym both for editor and author in most cases. The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of substandard practice research and to ensure coordination and adherence to balance of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, institution which carried out the research. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific importance. In addition compliance of the article to the principles of ethics in scientific publications and recommendations for eliminating of violations are determined by reviewers.

Reviewers are reported that manuscript which was sent is an intellectual property of authors and related to the information that remains confidential. Reviewers could not copy submitted for review articles or use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication. Review takes place on the basis of confidentiality when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, features and stages of review, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are evidence or allegations of fraud or incorrectness of materials in the article. By consent (optation) of the authors and reviewers, in the article can be typed comments of reviewers. In any case, the author has an opportunity to read the text of the review, particularly if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.

 
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS

The aim of the institute of review of the scientific journal "Economics of Development" is to maintain the highest ethical standards of research, according to which before the beginning of the review reviewer should aware about requirements for ethics in scientific publications. The process of reviewing submitted to the Scientific Journal "Economics of Development" articles targets on the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics, (COPE) and on the experience of leading scientific communities. This can improve the quality of printed materials and overcome prejudice and injustice in declining or accepting articles.

The policy of scientific journal "Economics of development " attributes to the major ethical norms that should guide the process of reviewing the subjects following items:
- if the reviewer is not sure that his qualifications are not enough for the level and direction of research presented in the article, he should abandon the review immediately;
- the aim of reviewer is an objective evaluation of the current articles' quality and identifying the extent of its compliance with the scientific, literary and ethical standards;
- during the process of review the selfish interests of individuals should be negated and the intellectual independence of authors should be respected;
- for the ensuring of the each author's right for the intellectual property  any use of the received arguments and conclusions of the author by the reviewers is prohibited without his permission;
- if there is a conflict of interests of the research results with personal reviewer development or if there is any such professional or personal-close ties between author and reviewer, which may affect on the reviewer's opinion, he should return the article, pointing to a conflict of interests;
- the priority item is the confidentiality of peer-reviewed articles, given that reviewer could not disclose information from the article or discuss not yet made ​​public the findings and recommendations by other colleagues (exception is when a reviewer needs special consultation, which requires permission of the editorial board);
- the seriousness of the accusations in plagiarism requires by the reviewer an adequate and reasoned justification of his comments. Any allegations in plagiarism or the presence of biased citations should be accompanied by reference (the reviewer's conclusions should not be defamatory or to discredit the author without any serious grounds for this);
- if a reviewer has doubt about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he necessarily has to contact the editorial board with the requirement for collective consideration of the article;
- because the reviewer has to tag any cases of insufficient quoting by the authors of works of other scholars, working in area of peer-reviewed article, by the authors, comments about the lack of citation in own reviewer research identified as biased;
- the maintain a constant frequency of publication of scientific journal "Economics of Development" requires high reviewer's  discipline, which revealed through the timely provision of review on article and the respectable relations to the authors (if there are a manifestation of discourtesy towards the authors or systematic low-quality reviews of articles or violation of terms of reviews, the relationship with this reviewer is terminated);
- it is forbidden for reviewers to use or disclose unpublished information or arguments of the author, it is not considered controversial to some ethical termination to stop own reviewer's research if in his opinion they are inconclusive.


PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS

1. The author provides an article to the editorial board, the article should meet the requirements of the policy of the journal "Economics of Development" and the rules of the preparation of articles and scientific papers before publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the adopted requirements are not registered and not accepted for further consideration, and author should be informed about this.

2. All manuscripts submitted to Editorial Board are directed to the profile of research to one reviewer, and if necessary - to two reviewers. the chief editor of "Economics of Development" assigns referees. According to the chief editor (under certain circumstances) reviewers can be assigned by a member of the Editorial Board. In some cases, the selection of reviewers determined on a meeting of the editorial board. According to the chief editor's decision some articles of the eminent scientists as well as specially invited article may be exempted from the standard procedures of reviewing.

3. For reviewing of the articles as reviewers may act as members of the editorial board of scientific journal "Economics of Development"  and foreign high-qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific direction, usually Ph.D. and professors.

4. After receipt of article for review (within 7 days) reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials based on his own skills under the direction of the author and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests reviewer should not review the article and should inform the editorial board about this. The latter should decide to appoint another reviewer.

5. Reviewer usually within 21 days concludes the possibility of printing the article. Terms of review may change in each case subject considering the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of quality of materials.

6. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing (two-way "blind" review, when neither the author nor the reviewer do not know each other). The interaction between author and reviewers occurs in a way of correspondence by e-mail through the executive secretary of the scientific journal "Economics of Development" or through the environment EasyChairConferenceSystem. At the request of the reviewer and in agreement with the working group an interaction between the Editorial Board and reviewer can occur in an open mode (such decision is made only if the interaction of openness will improve the style and presentation logic of research material). In case of rejection of the principles of double-blind review, the reviewer's name can be specified at the end of the printed article. The editorial board must ensure that at least three articles in each issue will be addressed in the mode double-blind review.

7. For all articles which are provided for reviewing, the degree of uniqueness copyright text is determined using appropriate software (e. g., freeware service "eTXT").

8. After the final analysis of the article reviewer fills out a standardized form (Appendix 1), which contains a summary of recommendations. During the preparing of the form were used and generalized universally recommendations for the sequence and organization of the reviewing process (ReviewQualityInstrument). Editors notify the author about the results of reviewing by e-mail.

9. If the reviewer points to the need to make certain articles corrections, the article is sent to the author with the offer to consider the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. Into a revised article, the author adds the letter, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. Revised version is given to a reviewer again for the decision and prepare a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication. The date of the articles publication is the date of receipt of a positive conclusion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) by editorial office regarding the advisability and possibility of publishing an article

10. In case of inconsistencies with the reviewer opinion the author is entitled to a reasonable response to the editor of the journal. In this case the article is considered at a meeting of the Working Group editorial board. Editors may submit an article for additional or new review another expert. Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles if the failure or unwillingness to consider the author's suggestions and comments of reviewers. At the request of the editorial board reviewer can give a different story lectoring with mandatory compliance with the principles of double-blind review.

11. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is adopted by the chief editor (or on his behalf - a member of the editorial board), and if necessary during meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After deciding on the admission of articles for publication executive secretary shall notify the author and indicate the expected date of publication.

12. In the case of a positive decision on the possibility of publishing an article comes to editorial magazine portfolio for its publication in the order of turn and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the chief editor, the article may be published out of turn, in the nearest issue).

13. The final decision about the composition of printed articles is recorded in minutes of the Academic Council of Kharkiv National Economic University, and the corresponding mark about this on the second page of the journal is made

14. The article, approved for publication, is provided to a technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections which do not affect on the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author manuscript as a model of article is returned to the author for approval.

15. Responsibility for copyright infringement and for failure of existing standards in article's materials relies on the author. The responsibility for the accuracy of the above facts and data, the validity of findings, recommendations and scientific and practical level of article relies on the author and reviewer.


APPENDIXES


Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3

Scheme of making articles for publication in scientific journal "economics of development" without using easychair conference system
Scheme of making articles for publication in scientific journal "economics of development" with using easychair conference system
        EasyChair