REGULATIONS
on peer review and the order of treating articles in Scientific Notes of the National University of Ostroh Academy", series "Economics"

1.These norms regulate the treatment and the procedure of peer review of the articles submitted to the editorial board of the Scientific Notes of Ostroh Academy National University, "Economics" series.

2. The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the journal through assessing materials by highly qualified experts.

3. The peer review procedure is anonymous both for the reviewer and for the authors, and is performed by two independent reviewers (double blind peer review).

4. All reviewers must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics, be objective and impartial.

5. The following points are to be covered in the peer review:
• whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
• whether the content of the article corresponds to the subject areas of the magazine;
• whether the content of the article contains novelty;
• whether the article corresponds to the scientific level of the journal;
• is the article suitable for being published, considering literature previously released on this issue and whether it is of interest to a wide readership;

6. Only the articles arranged in strict accordance with the «Requirements for articles», that have passed the initial control of the editorial board are admitted for peer review (uniqueness of the article - not less than 75%).

7. In the case of reservations at the stage of initial review, the article may be returned to the author on grounds of  uniqueness requirement non-compliance, which will be reported by the editorial board to the author with attachment of the review report.

8. If the manuscript of an article complies with the requirements listed above, it is handed over to the releasing editor.

9. Technical editor provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author(s) (encoding of the article).

10. The encoded article shall be sent by e-mail to:
а) a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific area relevant to the topic of the article;
б) an external peer reviewer.
The external peer review involves domestic and foreign doctors who are the authors of scientific works on the topicality stated in the article. The editorial board sends the specified scientist a review request with attached coded article and a sample of review.
External peer reviewers are generally chosen randomly based on their current load and their consent.

11. A member of the Editorial Board and external peer reviewers who received a coded article, fill in a standard form (see Appendix) and choose one of the following options for recommendations: recommended for publication ; recommended for revision, not recommended for publication.

12. In a case of refusal or need for revision, the peer reviewer / member of the Editorial Board / editor shall provide a reasoned written explanation for of such decision.

13. The recommendation period shouldn’t surpass two weeks from the date when the article has been received.

14. Peer reviewer’s recommendations are emailed to the technical editor.

15. The final decision on the article is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board which is held once a week and involves the editor, deputy editor in charge of the issue, the compiler. The decision is made taking into consideration the received reviews.

16. The further work on the article that has been accepted for publication is performed by the editorial board staff  with accordance to the technological process.

17. The decision of the Editorial Board is sent to the author(s). The articles that are to be revised are sent to the author(s) with reviews that contains specific recommendations on the article improvement. Anonymity of peer reviewers is guaranteed by the editorial board of the journal.

18. The improved version of the article is sent for a second reviewing. In the case of repeated negative results, the reviewed article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

19. Revision does not  foresee discussions with authors of rejected articles.

20. The electronic version of reviews and recommendations on each article are stored for two years from the day of the issue of the magazine, which contained the peer-reviewed article.

 

Editor-in-chief, PhD in Economics, docent                                       Y. V. Shulyk  

Deputy editor, Doctor of Science in Economics, docent                  L. V. Kozak

Responsible editor, PhD in Economics                                             N.M. Danyliuk  

Annex

PEER REVIEW EVALUATION BLANK

Title of the article:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Registration number:___________________________________

№	Peer reviewer’s questionary	Yes	No	Comentaries
1	Does the content of the article correspond to the subject areas of the magazine?
2	Is the topic scientifically urgent and useful from the practical perspective?
3	Does the title of the article reflect the content and objectives of the article?
4	Does the introduction contain clearly defined objectives?
5	Is the scientific argumentation logical and convincing?
6	Is the representation of the results of the research methodologically correct? Give your suggestions if you believe that some corrections and amendments are needed.
7	Are the results of the research reflected fully and accurately? Do they show the novelty and give suggestions about further investigations?
8	Can or should some parts of the article be abridged, removed, expanded or redone?
9	Will you recommend any improvements from the point of view of style and language?
10	Are you satisfied with the number, quality and convenience of references and sources?
	Recommendations of the peer-reviewer			Recommended for publication Recommended for revision Not recommended for publication.