Reviewing process

Bulletin ethical principles are based on the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for journal editors.

All the articles, received by the editorial office, are submitted to the reviewing procedure. According to the editorial policy of the Bulletin of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Economic series, the reviewing procedure is anonymous for both a reviewer and the authors (double-blind method).

The article is checked for plagiarism in the Strikeplagiarism.com system.
The editor sends the article to the reviewer.

The main principle of the reviewing procedure is to adhere to academic integrity and to harmonize the interests of the authors, readers and editorial board. During the reviewing process reviewers evaluate the scientific level of the article, the importance of the results, obtained by the authors, and their validity.

The review addresses the following questions:
Does the topic correspond to the scientific profile of the journal?
Is the topic scientifically relevant / practically useful?
Does the title of the article reflect the content and purpose of this article?
Does the introduction contain clearly stated tasks?
Are the research methods used correctly?
Does the article contain elements of new knowledge?
Are there any comments on the text of the article? (A letter of comments is attached).
Are there any comments on the correctness of the references and list of sources?
Reviewer's recommendation:
- Recommended for publication
- Recommended for revision
- Not recommended for publication

If the review contains recommendations for correction or revision of the article, the text of the review is sent to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version or to refute them with arguments (partially or completely).

The article revised (revised) by the author is re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.

In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal's editorial office. The article may be sent for re-review or for approval by the editorial board.

The editorial office reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes of the editorial office.

In case of refusal to publish the article, the editorial office sends the author a motivated refusal.

If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or one negative reviewer for its revised version, the article is rejected without consideration by other members of the editorial board.

After the editorial board makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the editor-in-chief informs the author and indicates the publication deadlines.

The average time during which the preliminary assessment of manuscripts is conducted (Days) - 7
The average time during which the reviews of manuscripts are conducted (Days) - 30
The average time in which the article is published (Days) - 100

REVIEWERS RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers must: notify Editorial staff of any conflicts of interests that may determine their findings; protect the confidentiality of information relating to the manuscript; be objective and constructive in their reviews.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.