The review of manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication in the ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW (EFMR) is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level and the allocation of the most relevant and progressive scientific works.
The ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW (EFMR) uses the method of Double blind peer reviewing:
- the reviewer does not know the personal information about the author / authors;
- the author / authors do not know the personal information about the reviewer.
Reviewing the article lasts from 1 to 8 weeks.
If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must notify the editor.
The main types of conflict of interest are:
- the reviewer and the author (one of the authors) work in the same organization;
- the reviewer is the scientific supervisor of the graduate student who is the author of the article;
- the topic of the article is part of the topic on which the reviewer is currently working;
- other matters.
In the case when the author is a representative of the publishing house or a member of the editorial board, third-party scientists are invited to the review, whose search is carried out through scientific search systems.
After the reviewing a scientific article, the reviewer can:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for the publication after the author’s reviewing, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
- not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after reviewing on the basis of comments or does not recommend the article for publication, he/she must give the reason for the decision in his/her review.
When reviewing the scientific articles reviewers must:
- pay special attention to the significance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- characterize theoretical and applied value of the conducted researches;
- evaluate the correctness of mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- evaluate how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
- establish the status of compliance with the rules of scientific ethics by the authors, the correctness of references to resources.
The necessary element of the Review must be an assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem.
Reviewers must also note the compliance with style, logic and the presence of scientific language, as well as they should make conclusions about the authenticity and substantiation of the author’s (authors’) conclusions in this article.