Criteria for publication
The journal «Sochi Journal of Economy» receives many more submissions than it can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in «Sochi Journal of Economy», a paper should meet four general criteria:
In general, to be acceptable a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in a field. There should be a discernible reason as to why the work deserves the visibility of publication in«Sochi Journal of Economy».
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to one or two reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice.
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using people who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient.
We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.
Writing the review
The primary purpose for the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors as to how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to the authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal (as outlined in the letter from the editor when asking for the review). If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision.
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel so strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
Peer-review publication policies
All contributions submitted to «Sochi Journal of Economy» that are selected for peer-review are sent to at least one - but usually two or more - independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honors them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.
Ethics and security
«Sochi Journal of Economy» editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of access to data or materials. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision as to whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Sochi Journal of Economy” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the “Elsevier” Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications). Source: https://publicationethics.org
The editors of the “Sochi Journal of Economy”, when carrying out publishing activities, fully comply with the principles, criteria and conditions set forth in the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications”, given below. Source: https://rassep.ru/etich-komitet/manifesty/deklaratsiya/
Editorial ethics. The editorial team of the journal in its activities is guided by the principles of science, objectivity, professionalism, impartiality.
Responsibility for compliance with ethical standards. Researchers, authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers have an ethical obligation to publish and disseminate the results of scientific research.
Rules of communication with authors. Interaction with authors is based on the principles of fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty and transparency.
The presence of a review institute. All journal content, other than promotional and editorial material clearly identified as such, is subject to mandatory peer review (open, blind, double blind). Double-blind peer review is preferred.
Access to publications. Journals guarantee access to publications by providing storage of materials in the leading libraries and repositories of scientific information in the country.
Information openness. The publishing page on the Internet publishes provisions on publication ethics and peer review, clearly articulates the journal's policy, rules for submitting manuscripts, instructions for authors and information on the availability of materials (free access or by subscription). Be sure to indicate ISSN, the address of the publisher.
Information about paid services. All information about paid services, if any, in one form or another, is clearly written and available on the journal's website, approved by the editor-in-chief. If the journal does not provide paid services, this is also indicated on the publication's website.
Compliance with the ethical criteria of authorship. 1. The author is only a person who was significantly involved in writing the work, in the development of its concept, in scientific design, collection of material, analysis and interpretation; 2. Obligatory is the consent of all authors to the publication. All co-authors must meet these criteria.
Coordination of the final text of the article with the author. The publication of an article under the name of the author implies the emergence of copyright. The publication of a text not agreed with the author, as well as the inclusion of third parties as co-authors, is a violation of copyright.
Terms of decision-making by the editors. Editorial decisions are made within a limited time frame and are set out in a clear and constructive form on the publication's website in the instructions for authors.
Interaction with scientific and professional associations. The editorial boards seek to interact with professional scientific associations and industry communities in order to ensure the high quality of the work of scientists.
Prevention and correction of violations of ethics. The duty of scientific editors is to prevent situations when authors, reviewers or other entities involved in the production of scientific texts engage in unethical behavior, as well as to ensure the removal of unscrupulous publications from the scientific space, to cooperate with the ethics council and scientific associations.
Conflict of interests. The editors encourage authors to disclose relationships with industrial and financial organizations that could lead to a conflict of interest. All sources of funding must be indicated by the authors in the body of the article
ANRI recognizes the following as unethical behavior in the field of scientific publications:
The requirement for authors to independently provide reviews of their own articles, as well as contractual and pseudo-reviewing. This practice implies the absence of peer review in the journal.
Proposal of agency services. Provision of such services to authors as "turnkey publication", correspondence with the editors on behalf of the author, revision of articles by the agent on the recommendations of the reviewer, preparation of paid reviews.
Sale of co-authorship, gift co-authorship, change in the composition of authors. Indication of persons who have not made an intellectual contribution to the study as authors is a violation of copyright and ethical standards, since it not only misleads readers, but is also regarded as fraud.
Publication of materials of correspondence “scientific” conferences. Since the practice of such conferences is directly related to machinations and fraud in the field of science, the publication of the materials of these conferences is regarded as unethical, contributing to the spread of pseudoscientific texts.
Transfer of texts of articles to other journals without the consent of the authors. The publication of an article in a journal that has not been agreed with the author is a violation of the author's interests.
Transfer of materials of authors to third parties. The transfer of materials of articles sent to the editorial office to third parties, except for reviewers and editorial staff, is a violation of copyright and the principle of confidentiality of editorial processes.
Citation manipulation. Artificial increase in scientometric indices, excessive self-citation and friendly citation, irrelevant links mislead readers and are interpreted as fraud.
Plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The editors conscientiously work with the texts of articles, preventing the appearance of unscrupulous scientific publications containing plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data on the pages of their publications.