Reviewing

All the articles 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 journal. Also reviewing provides a comprehensive analysis of advantages and disadvantages of article materials.

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 anonymous both for editor and author.


The reviewing procedure underruns the following stages:

  1. The author provides an article to the editorial board, the article should meet the requirements of the policy of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the adopted requirements are not accepted for further consideration, and authors are informed about this. 
  2. All the manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are directed to the profile of research to one reviewer, and if necessary - to two reviewers. The chief editor (deputy chief editor) of the journal assigns referees.
  3. For reviewing the articles as reviewers may act both members of the editorial board of the scientific journal and foreign highly qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field.
  4. After the article for review received (within 3 days) the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials based on his own skills under the author’s field of specialization and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any adverse interests reviewer should not review the article and inform the editorial board about this. The latter should decide to appoint another reviewer.
  5. The reviewer usually within 10 days concludes the possibility of printing the article. Terms of reviewing may change in each case subject considering the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of materials quality.
  6. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing (two-way "blind" review, when neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). The interaction between author and reviewers is held by the e-mail correspondence through the executive secretary of the scientific journal.
  7. The reviewer fills out a questionnaire that evaluates the following: whether the topic of the article corresponds to the scientific profile of the journal; if the topic of the article is relevant; whether the title of the article corresponds to its content; if the scientific argumentation of the main provisions of the article is logical and convincing; if the main research findings are sufficiently grounded; whether the main research results contain elements of scientific novelty; whether the conclusions presented fully reflect the results of the study; if some parts of the article should be shortened, deleted, enlarged or redone; whether there is sufficient quantity and quality of literary sources, as well as the references to them are correct; general literacy of material presentation.In addition, the reviewer may add an extended commentary, in particular, to recommend some clarifications in terms of style, language, and terminology used; provide possible recommendations as for directions and methods for article correcting, the use of certain scientific methods or techniques, sources of information.
  8. Reviews, signed by the reviewer by ordinary or digital e-signature, are kept in the editorial office for at least three years. After the final analysis of the article the reviewer fills out a standardized form which contains a summary of recommendations. 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. Revised version is given to a reviewer again for a reasoned conclusion as for the possibility of its publication. The date of the article publication is the date of a positive conclusion of the reviewer receiving (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’s 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 of the editorial board. Editors may submit an article for additional or new review to another expert. Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of the author's failure or unwillingness to consider suggestions and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer the editorial board can submit the article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to 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 by a member of the editorial board). After deciding on the admission of articles for publication the 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 the article comes to the editorial magazine portfolio for its publication in the order of turn.
  13. The final decision about the composition of printed articles is recorded in the minutes of the Academic Board of Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mykhailo Tugan-Baranovsky, and the corresponding mark about this on the second page of the journal is made.
  14. The article, approved for publication, is provided to the editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections which do not affect the content of the article are made by the editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author manuscripts as an article layout is returned to the author for approval.
  15. Responsibility for copyright infringement and for failure of existing standards in article's materials is placed up on the author. The responsibility for the accuracy of the facts and data mentioned, the validity of findings, recommendations and scientific and practical level of the article are placed up on the author and the reviewer.