Procedure for reviewing articles sent to the editorial board of a peer-reviewed publication

1. Organization and procedure of reviewing
1.1 All articles received by the editorial board are subject to mandatory reviewing. Articles will not be published in the journal without reviewing. The publication performs reviewing of all materials received by the editorial board and corresponding to the subject of the journal for the purpose of their expert evaluation.
1.2 Reviewing of manuscripts is confidential in order to protect the author’s rights. Breach of confidentiality is possible in case of
a reviewer’s claim on falsification of submitted materials.
1.3 An article is accepted for review only if it meets the requirements to the author’s original articles (materials) placed on the website of the journal “Progressive Economy”.
1.4 All author’s manuscripts are checked for compliance with the magazine’s subject matter, design requirements, uniqueness and absence of incorrect borrowings, including self-borrowings.
1.5. All materials received by the editorial board undergo a mandatory electronic (software) check for incorrect borrowings and excessive self-citation before sending the manuscripts to reviewers.
1.6 The primary expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the chief editor or deputy chief editor.
1.7 If the materials received by the editorial board meet the primary requirements of the journal, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines a member of the editorial board who supervises the
the corresponding direction (scientific discipline). In the absence of a member of the editorial board who supervises the corresponding direction (scientific discipline), the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines an external reviewer.
1.8 All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of a peer-reviewed article within the last 3 years. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and in the editorial board of the publication for 5 years.
1.9 In their activities the reviewers are guided by the norms of publication ethics and prevention of unfair publication practices which are the basis of the journal policy.
1.10. The reviewer evaluates the compliance of the article with the scientific profile of the journal, its relevance, novelty and reliability of the results, theoretical and (or) practical relevance, availability of conclusions and recommendations, compliance with the established design rules.

1.11. Based on the reviewing the following decisions are made and reported to the author: to accept the manuscript for publication; to return it for revision: comments, recommendations and deadlines are reported to the author; to refuse the publication: a motivated refusal is sent to the author. The editorial board of the edition in the obligatory order sends to authors of the presented materials copies of reviews or the motivated refusal, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when the corresponding request comes to the editorial board of the edition. Time limits for reviewing articles are determined by the chief editor of the journal taking into account the condition of the most rapid response to the author of the publication and is not more than 30 working days from the date of receipt of articles by the reviewer. The editorial board may deny a reviewer the right of reviewing.
1.12. An article accepted for publication but in need of revision is sent to the author with the appropriate comments of the reviewer and/or editor-in-chief. The review should indicate the specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of substantive and/or technical deficiencies identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The reviewer’s comments and wishes should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The author should make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript and submit it to the editorial board on electronic and paper together with the original version and the covering letter of response to the reviewer. After revision, the article is re-reviewed and the editorial board makes a decision on the possibility of publication. Articles sent to the authors for correction should be returned to the editorial board no later than 7 calendar days after receipt. Return of the article in a later period changes the date of publication.
1.13. When receiving a positive review the editorial board informs the author about the admission of the article for publication with the indication of the publication dates.
1.14. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts, which received a negative result from the reviewer, are not published and are not returned to the author. 1.14. The final decision on accepting an author’s article and placing it in one of the journal issues is made at the meeting of the editorial board and is approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
1.15. Editors do not communicate information concerning a manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, reviewing process, reviewers’ critical comments and final decision) to anyone except the authors and reviewers themselves.

1.16. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and are not allowed to give a part of a manuscript for reviewing to another person without the permission of the editors. Reviewers as well as editorial staff are not allowed to use knowledge of the content of the work before its publication for their own interests. Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are classified as non-public information.
If the publication of the article caused a violation of someone’s copyright or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics, the editorial board has the right to withdraw the published article.
1.17. The editorial board ensures the permanent storage of published scientific articles, their availability, providing mandatory copies of the publication in the prescribed manner.

2. Requirements for the content of the review
2.1 The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned evaluation and a justified conclusion about the publication.
2.2 The review should pay special attention to the coverage of the following issues:
– general analysis of the scientific level, relevance of the topic, structure of the article, terminology;
– evaluation of compliance of the article materials design with the established requirements: volume of the article as a whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references); expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic presented;
– scientificity of the presentation, compliance of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author with modern achievements of science and practice;
– the reliability of the facts presented, the arguability of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;
– scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the article;
– inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author;
– recommendations regarding the rational reduction of the volume or necessary additions to the materials proposed for publication, explaining the essence of the presented research results (specify, for which element of the article);
– conclusion on the possibility of publication.
2.3 Presence of a significant share of reviewer’s critical remarks with an overall positive recommendation allows to classify the material as controversial and print it in the order of scientific discussion.
2.4 Scientific articles can be sent for additional reviewing if there are sufficient grounds for it. The grounds for a second review are:
– stated insufficient qualification in the issues considered in the scientific article by the expert (experts);
– insufficiently high level of the original expert opinion;
– acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
2.5 The reviewer submits a formalized review to the editorial board as a scanned copy by e-mail or in hard copy by mail.
2.6 Signature on the review should be certified at the reviewer’s place of work.
If the reviewer wishes, the review can be written in a free form in compliance with the requirements of clause 2.2 of the present Regulations. 2.2 of these Regulations.
2.7 The editorial board sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of submitted materials. In this case, in order to comply with paragraph 2.2 of these Regulations, the editorial board “depersonalizes” the review by sending an excerpt from the review to the author concerning the essence of the article, but without disclosing personal data of the reviewer. The editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when requested, including at the request of the Higher Attestation Commission.
2.8 The reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.

3. Retraction rules
3.1 Possible grounds for retraction of an article:
– Duplication of the article in several editions; detection of incorrect borrowing or significant self-citation (self-plagiarism).
– Revealed violation of the publication ethics of the author.
– Revealing the facts of falsification or fabrication, as well as the discovery of significant errors that cast doubt on the scientific value of the article. In this case, the errors can be the result of both good-faith error and conscious violations of the authors of the publications.
3.2 The author(s) of the retracted article are sent a notice indicating the reason for retraction. Information about the article and the full text remain on, but are supplemented with information about retraction. The withdrawn articles and references from them are excluded from RSCI and do not participate in the calculation of indicators.
3.3 There is no statute of limitations for the retraction procedure.

4. Data retention policy
The archive of issues of the journal is available for review and download
4.1 On the official website of the journalархив-выпусков
4.2 In scientific electronic library e-
The present Procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles is developed on the basis of the Rules of forming the List of peer-reviewed scientific editions, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of doctor and candidate of sciences should be published (Order of December 12, 2016 № 1586 “On approval of the rules of forming the list of peer-reviewed scientific editions (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on April 26, 2017, Registration No. 46507), as amended by Order No. 99 of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia dated February 12, 2018 (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on March 15, 2018, registration No. 50368).

Magazine release schedule