Review procedure

All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer-reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.

 
STATEMENT OF  MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCEDUR

1. Reviewing Arrangements

1.1. All research papers submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory peer review. Reviewing of the manuscripts for publication in a thematic  of " THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF REGIONAL ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT " is organized by the editorial boards. Responsibility for the quality and timeliness of the peer reviews rests with the editor-in-chief.  Deadlines for reviewing are set by the executive secretary.

1.2. The editor-in-chief and the executive secretary test the paper for the appropriate subject scope and formatting style and have the paper sent for reviewing to members of the editorial board with the most direct knowledge of the subject matter in the field. Reviewers cannot be the author or co-author of the paper under review. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are private property of the authors and contain the information that is not to be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the papers.

1.3. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know each other. The interaction between authors and reviewers occurs in a way of correspondence by e-mail through the executive secretary of the journal. The text of the review is submitted for the author’s consideration. The rule of anonymity is only broken in case of the alleged plagiarism or falsification of the material contained in the paper.

1.4. If the review contains recommendations for modification of the paper, the executive secretary sends the review to the author asking to revise the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments, or the author is entitled to submit a point-to-point rebuttal. The revised paper is resubmitted for reviewing .

1.5. If the reviewer does not recommend to accept the paper, the editorial board may have the paper sent to be revised according to the reviewer’s comments, as well as to be analyzed by  another reviewer . The review report containing strong criticism is sent to the author .

1.6. The decision to publish lies ultimately with the editorial board of the series and is recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting.

1.7. When a paper is formally accepted, it will be scheduled for publication, and the author will be informed of the tentative date. The review report is forwarded to the author.

1.8. Reviews of manuscripts should be stored in a thematic series of the editorial board for three years from the date of publication and be presented at the request of the VAK  Expert Council in Ukraine.

2. Requirements for the Review Reports

2.1. A review should include the analysis of the paper content, its objective evaluation and reasonable recommendations.

2.2. In a review the following issues should be highlighted:

·          general analysis of the scientific validity, the layout of the paper, and its topical importance;

·          relevance of the paper content to its title;

·         appropriate language and style satisfying the requirements for the format of the paper;

·          scientific timeliness of the paper and the methods used to describe the results of the research;

·        the length of the paper on the whole as well as its elements (text, tables, illustrations, references); relevance of the tables and illustrations to the subject under study; recommendations for reducing their length where appropriate (stating the element of the paper);

·          relationship to prior publications on this subject if the paper duplicates them (the  whole of it or in part );

·          the author’s inaccuracies and errors;

·          a detailed description of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

2.3. The reviewer should make suggestions to the author and publisher for improvement of the manuscript. Reviewer's comments and suggestions should be impartial and principled, meant to enhance the scientific and technical validity of the manuscript.

2.4. In the final part of the review clear recommendations should be given on the acceptance for publication in this thematic series of " THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF REGIONAL ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT " in a particular scientific field corresponding to the list of scientific specialties approved by MES of Ukraine.