Process of peer-review of manuscripts of articles in the journal «European Journal of Management Issues»
Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal «European Journal of Management Issues» and for selecting the relevant and most valuable academic papers.
The journal «European Journal of Management Issues» uses Double-Blind Peer Review:
- the reviewer does not know the personal information about the author/authors;
- the author/authors do not know the personal data about the reviewer.
The manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the site.
The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
The Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) determines of reviewer for review from among the members of the editorial board, who oversees the relevant scientific direction. In the absence of a member of the editorial board – the curator of the respective direction, the Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines the external reviewer for the provided article.
Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).
The editor recommends using the developed standard review form, which is available on the site's website when reviewing.
The review period for a reviewer is 4 to 8 weeks.
When reviewing scientific articles reviewers must:
- pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
- correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
- adherence by the authors to the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.
The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
The reviewer notes in the reviews the conformity of style, logic, and availability of scientific text, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.
After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- to recommend the article for posting;
- to recommend the article for its publication after the author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
- do not recommend the article for posting.
The review must state the reason for the decision if the reviewer recommends the article for posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication.
Scientific articles may be sent for further consideration if:
- insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
- acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
The reviewer sends the executed review to the editor by e-mail in the form of the scan-copy. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.