PEER REVIEW POLICY OF "THE PROBLEMS OF ECONOMY" JOURNAL

1. General Provisions

1.1. This Policy governs the peer review procedure for scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of The Problems of Economy journal and applies to all participants in the editorial process – authors, reviewers and editors.

1.2. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the high quality of publications through independent expert assessment of manuscripts and to provide authors with constructive feedback for improving their scholarly work.

1.3. The editorial board is guided by the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE's recommendations on reviewer conduct in the context of artificial intelligence.

2. Type of Peer Review

2.1. The Problems of Economy applies double-blind peer review: the identities of authors are unknown to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are unknown to authors throughout the entire review process.

2.2. Prior to sending a manuscript for review, the handling editor removes all information that could identify the authors: names, affiliations, acknowledgements, grant details and excessive self-citations. The anonymised version is sent to reviewers.

2.3. The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the editorial board. Disclosure of a reviewer's identity is possible only with their explicit written consent - for example, within the framework of open peer review at the reviewer's initiative.

3. Manuscript Processing Stages

Stage 1. Initial Editorial Check (up to 3 business days)

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board carries out an initial check covering: relevance to the journal's thematic scope; presence of all mandatory metadata elements (UDC, JEL, ORCID, affiliation, abstract); compliance with article requirements; level of textual borrowings (plagiarism check); and presence of all mandatory author statements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are returned to authors for revision or rejected without peer review, with reasons provided.

Step 2. Plagiarism check and use of AI tools (up to 4 business days).

The editorial board analyzes the text’s originality using an automated system. Manuscripts that do not meet the originality requirements are returned to the authors for revision or rejected without being sent for peer review, with an explanation of the reasons provided.

Stage 3. Assignment of Reviewers (up to 2 business days).

The handling editor assigns a registration code to the manuscript, anonymises it, and appoints two independent reviewers, taking into account their scholarly specialisation, absence of conflicts of interest, and current workload. Reviewers receive the anonymised manuscript together with the reviewer report form and this Policy.

Stage 4. External Peer Review (up to 14 business days).

The anonymised manuscript is sent to two independent reviewers: a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scholarly area; and an external reviewer - a domestic or international specialist with publications in the subject area of the manuscript who is an active researcher in the field.

Stage 4. Editorial Decision (up to 3 business days after receipt of reviews).

The final decision is taken by the editorial board, taking into account both reviews received. If the two reviewers reach diametrically opposing conclusions, the manuscript may be sent for an additional - third - independent review.

Stage 5. Notification of the Author.

The author(s) receive notification of the editorial board's decision together with the texts of the reviews (with reviewer anonymity maintained). In the event of a conditional acceptance, the author also receives specific requirements for revisions and the applicable deadline.

4. Criteria for Reviewer Selection

4.1. Reviewers are selected from among scholars who meet the following requirements:

• hold a doctorate or candidate of sciences (PhD) degree in the relevant specialisation;
• have current publications in the subject area of the manuscript, including in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
• are not affiliated with the institution(s) of the author(s);
• have no conflict of interest with the authors;
• are active researchers (with publications within the past 5 years).

4.2. A reviewer is required to notify the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest before commencing the review and to decline to review the manuscript if such a conflict exists (for example, competing research in the same subject area).

4.3. Manuscripts for which members of the editorial board are listed as authors or co-authors are handled under a special procedure: they are not processed by the editors involved but are submitted for fully independent peer review organised by another member of the editorial board or an invited independent editor with no relationship with the authors. Editorial board members do not participate in editorial decisions regarding their own manuscripts.

5. Reviewer Obligations

5.1. Upon receiving an invitation to review, a reviewer is required to:

• confirm or decline the invitation as promptly as possible (no later than 2 business days);
• notify the editorial board of any conflict of interest;
• adhere to the stipulated review preparation timeframe (14 business days);
• if unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, notify the editorial board in advance and, where possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.

5.2. A reviewer is required to:

• treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not share it with third parties without the permission of the editorial board;
• refrain from using unpublished materials from the manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author;
• provide an objective, impartial and constructive assessment of the manuscript;
• substantiate conclusions with specific references to passages in the manuscript and relevant scholarly sources;
• avoid personal criticism of the authors - comments must relate solely to the scholarly content;
• notify the editorial board of any suspicions of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or other violations of academic integrity.

5.3. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading the manuscript or any part thereof to generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini or similar), as this violates the confidentiality of authors and their intellectual property rights. Any use of AI tools for ancillary purposes during the review process must be disclosed in the reviewer report.

6. Manuscript Assessment Criteria

The reviewer assesses the manuscript using the reviewer report form against the following criteria:

Scientific Content: elevance to the journal's thematic scope; timeliness and scholarly significance of the problem; clarity and specificity of the research aim, hypotheses and research questions; originality and scientific novelty; soundness and correctness of the methodological approach and methods; reliability, completeness and correct interpretation of the results; consistency of conclusions with the research aim and results; practical value and applicability of the findings.

Quality of Presentation: logical coherence and sequencing of the manuscript's structure; clarity, precision and academic standard of language; quality, correctness and appropriateness of tables, figures and equations.

Scholarly Communication: comprehensiveness and currency of the reference list; correctness of citation and reference formatting; engagement with current domestic and international publications on the topic; presence and quality of the critical literature review.

7. Decisions Following Peer Review

Following peer review, the reviewer selects one of the following recommendations:

Accept - the manuscript meets all requirements and may be accepted for publication without changes or with minor technical corrections that do not require re-review.

Minor Revision - the manuscript has scholarly merit and requires only minor clarifications. The revised version is checked by the editor without being returned to reviewers.

Major Revision - the manuscript requires significant changes to content, methodology or structure. The revised version is sent for re-review by the same reviewers.

Reject - the manuscript has fundamental scholarly or methodological shortcomings that cannot be remedied through revision. The reviewer is required to provide a detailed written justification for this decision.

8. Revision Procedure

8.1. The author(s) receive the reviews with specific comments and suggestions (with reviewer anonymity maintained) and are required to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a response letter, in which they explain in detail what changes have been made and why certain comments have not been addressed.

8.2. The revised version (in the case of Major Revision) is submitted for re-review by the same reviewers. If the re-review decision is again negative, the manuscript is rejected.

8.3. Revision deadlines:

• for minor corrections (Minor Revision): up to 14 calendar days;
• for substantial revision (Major Revision): up to 30 calendar days.

If necessary, the author may submit a reasoned request to the editorial board for an extension.

8.4. If the author fails to submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated deadline and does not request an extension, the manuscript is considered withdrawn.

9. Appeals

9.1. Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they consider it to be unsubstantiated or inconsistent with the content of the reviews. An appeal must be submitted in the form of a reasoned letter to the editorial board, setting out in detail the grounds for the challenge, no later than 10 business days after receipt of the decision.

9.2. The appeal is reviewed by the editorial board (independently of the editor who handled the manuscript) within 14 business days. If the appeal is found to be substantiated, the manuscript may be sent for additional independent peer review.

9.3. The decision taken as a result of the appeal is final.

10. Retention of Documentation

Reviews and peer review materials (reviewer reports, author response letters, editorial decisions) are retained by the editorial board in electronic form for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.

11. Ethical Obligations of Editors

11.1. Editors are required to:

• consider all manuscripts objectively and impartially, regardless of the race, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs or political views of the authors;
• maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts at all stages of the editorial process;
• refrain from using unpublished manuscript materials in their own research;
• take appropriate action in the event of identified breaches of publication ethics, in accordance with COPE procedures;
• communicate the reasons for editorial decisions to authors in a clear and constructive manner.

11.2. Editors are strictly prohibited from using generative AI tools to make editorial decisions or to prepare correspondence regarding specific manuscripts.

12. Reviewer Report Form

Reviewers complete a standardised reviewer report form approved by the editorial board. The form contains a structured assessment of the manuscript against the criteria set out in Section 6 of this Policy, an overall recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject), and fields for confidential comments to the editor and open comments to the authors.

Review form (download here)

The Peer Review Policy is reviewed and updated by the editorial board in accordance with changes in international scholarly publishing standards. Last updated: March 2026.