The order of consideration of articles. Reviewing.
The selection of articles for publication in the journal is as follows.
1. The submitted manuscript goes through the process of initial assessment in terms of compliance with the formal and qualitative requirements: the subject of the journal, the rules for writing articles, originality, clarity and consistency of presentation in literate Russian, etc. In case of non-compliance with these requirements, the article is not accepted for consideration, about which the Editorial Board notifies the author with an indication of the reason for the refusal. As a rule, this happens within 15 days from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the Editors.
2. If the article is accepted for consideration, it is assigned to one of the responsible employees of the journal, who conducts all further negotiations with the author, sends the manuscript for reviewing to experts – recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed material, who have publications in this area over the past 3 years. In controversial cases, an article may be sent to more than two specialists. These may include both members of the editorial board and external experts.
3. Reviewing is carried out anonymously: the names of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. The peer review process, by experience, takes an average of 6 weeks.
4. The review must contain:
- assessment of the essence of the work and the possibility of its publication in the journal;
- specific listing of errors in the methodology and tools (if any);
- Suggestions for improving the text.
5. Based on the results of reviewing, the article can be accepted for publication (5.1), sent to the author for revision (5.2) or rejected (5.3). Copies of reviews are sent to the authors.
5.1. Upon receiving a positive opinion from the reviewers, the article is placed in the journal’s “portfolio” for the final editorial preparation for publication (see clause 6).
5.2. After revision, the article is re-sent to the reviewers who assess how adequately their comments were taken into account and / or how well-reasoned the author’s refusal to make certain corrections.
5.3. If a negative opinion of the reviewers is received, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board, which makes a decision on rejecting the article or on the need for an additional review by an independent expert. In case of rejection of the article, a notification letter is sent to the author.
5.4. The reviews are kept by the Editorial Board for 5 years. The editors undertake to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a request.
6. Preparation of an article for publication, carried out by the Editorial Board of the journal, consists in monitoring the consideration of the comments of reviewers, literary editing and bringing the text to the editorial standards adopted in the journal. Editing changes are agreed with the authors.
7. The final decision on the date of publication of the article is made routinely in the process of forming the structure and content of the next issues and is approved by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.
Publications in the journal «Industrial Economy» are included in the systems for calculating citation indices of authors and journals. «Citation Index» — is a numerical indicator that characterizes the significance of this article and is calculated on the basis of subsequent publications referring to this work.
The journal is indexed in systems:
- Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) – a bibliographic and abstract index, implemented in the form of a database, accumulating information on publications of Russian scientists in Russian and foreign scientific publications. The RSCI project has been developed since 2005 by the «Scientific Electronic Library» (eLibrary.RU).
- Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) – the index was created in collaboration with the Scientific Electronic Library (eLibrary.RU) and includes more than 600 Russian scientific journals.
- Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) – an Internet project dedicated to the systematization of research papers in the field of economics.
Ethics of scientific publications
The ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationship between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The publication ethics policy of the journal «Industrial Economics» is based on the recommendations and standards of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Obligations of authors
1.1. The author who sends the manuscript for consideration to the journal «Industrial Economics» confirms that it is original, that is, it has not been previously published in other publications in the current or similar form and is not under consideration in another journal. If the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, working material, the editors should be notified of this.
1.2. The list of authors includes only those who have made a significant contribution to the research and all of them confirm their consent to submit the manuscript to the journal. Moreover, the author who supports the contact with the editorial board does not take sole decisions and notifies all its co-authors about possible corrections in the article.
1.3. Authors must present their research results honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or unfair data manipulation.
1.4. The authors guarantee that there will be no plagiarism in the work in any form; in the case of using the works or statements of others, the authors provide the corresponding bibliographic references or citations.
1.5. Authors should avoid self-plagiarism and correctly refer to their previous work. Representation of the same data in several publications, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of the author’s own works are not allowed.
1.6. Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest (including grants and other financial support) that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
1.7. In case of revealing significant errors or inaccuracies in his already published work, the author must promptly notify the editorial board of this and take a joint decision with her on the possible form of their correction
2. Responsibilities of reviewers
2.1. Peer review helps the editor to make an adequate decision about publication and, through appropriate interaction with authors, can help the author improve the quality of the work. Peer review — is an essential link in formal scientific communication and is at the heart of the scientific approach. The editors share the point of view that all scientists who want to publish their work should also participate in reviewing other people’s manuscripts.
2.2. Any selected reviewer who realizes his lack of qualifications to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should promptly notify the editor and ask him to be excluded from the review of the corresponding manuscript.
2.3. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be discussed with persons not authorized by the editor.
2.4. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.
2.5. Reviewers should pay attention to significant gaps in the lists of used literature on this topic. On the other hand, any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier must have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the editor to any significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is in the scientific competence of the reviewer.
2.6. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used by the reviewer in his own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
2.7. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
3. Responsibilities of editors
3.1. The editor is independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board and editorial board of the journal. The decision to publish should always be based on the scientific content of the work in question, its scientific significance and reliability.
The editor makes honest and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensures an honest and efficient review process.
3.2. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.
3.3. The editor guarantees the confidentiality of the review process and does not work with manuscripts in respect of which he has a conflict of interest.
3.4. Editors resolve conflicts arising in the process of work, and use all available means to resolve them.
3.5. An editor who has received convincing evidence that a gross violation of ethical standards or erroneous statements or conclusions has taken place in a published article should report this to the publisher in order to promptly notify of changes, withdrawal (retraction) of publication, raise concerns and other appropriate actions.
4. Obligations of the publisher
4.1. The publisher must follow principles and procedures to promote ethical conduct by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be I am confident that his general attitude towards generating income did not affect the decisions of the editors.
4.2. The publisher should support the journal’s editors in addressing ethical complaints about the published material and help interact with other journals and / or publishers if this is helpful in fulfilling their editors’ duties.
4.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement best practices to improve ethical guidelines, article recall procedures, and error correction.
5. Withdrawal (retraction) of articles
When considering situations related to the withdrawal (retraction) of articles, the editors and publisher of the journal «Industrial Economics» are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the Ethics Council of ANRI (the rule of withdrawal (retraction) of articles from publication).
Grounds for withdrawing the article:
– Detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value
– Duplication of publication in several editions
– Detection of incorrect borrowing (plagiarism) in the publication
An article can be withdrawn at the official request of the authors who have reasoned to explain the reason for their decision, as well as at the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher based on their own expertise. In the latter case, an official letter is sent to the author (or the lead author as part of a team of authors) with information about the reasons for the withdrawal of the article.
After the withdrawal, the article remains on the journal’s website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI, but is marked as withdrawn. The same note is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been withdrawn.
The editorial board publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article indicating the reasons and date of retraction on the official website of the journal and in the next printed issue.
Information about the revocation of the article and its PDF version with the appropriate marking are sent to the NEB (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases, which include the journal. The information is also transferred to the ANRI Scientific Publications Ethics Council for inclusion in the Unified database of retracted articles.
• Non-profit partnership «Editorial office of the journal» «Industrial Economy»
• Institute of Economics RAS
Publication in the journal is free for authors.
The editors do not charge authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.
Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author.
Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
Borrowing and plagiarism
When considering an article, the editorial board of the journal «Industrial Economy» can check the material using the «Antiplagiat» system. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editors act in accordance with the rules of COPE.
Preprint and Postprint Placement Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in another scientific journal. When linking to an article published in the journal «Industrial Economy», the publisher asks to post a link (full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
For consideration are allowed articles previously posted by authors on personal or public sites that do not belong to other publishers.