Peer review guidelines

1. General provisions

1.1. The guideline specifies peer review process for all the articles submitted to Economics and Environmental Management; ITMO University Scientific Journal (hereinafter referred to as "Journal").

1.2. Peer review is aimed at expert evaluation of importance, originality, and scientific novelty of the articles on the declared subjects, to improve the quality of the auricles being published, and to maintain high scientific level of the Journal.

1.3. The Reviewers are highly-qualified Russian and foreign scientists researching in the analogous field. They have to have articles in the field being reviewed published for the last three years. A Reviewer has to have a PhD or Doctoral degree. Self peer review is not acceptable, peer review by the author’s colleagues or scientific supervisors being not acceptable either.

1.4. The submitted articles should meet the layout requirements published on the Journal web site. The number of reviews is determined by the Editorial Board. Some additional peer review can be carried out upon the decision of the Chief Editor.

1.5. The Journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the Reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. A review should be submitted by Reviewer within 30 days upon receipt. 1.6. Reference materials, comments etc. are not reviewed.

2. Peer review process

2.1. The Editorial Board accepts the articles on the fundamental and applied researches in the fields declared by the Journal. The manuscripts beyond the declared fieldsarenotreviewed.

2.2. An article submitted to the Journal is registered, and checked for compliance with the requirements for publication and plagiarism. To be reviewed manuscripts should have authorship of at least 80%.

2.3. A Reviewer is selected according to the subject field of the article.

2.4. Reviewers are notified that the article is the author’s copyrighted material and its content should not be divulged.

2.5. A review should cover the following points:

• Does the title of the article reflectits content?
• Does the introduction match the aim of the research and is it clear enough to demonstrate the essence of the problem under investigation?
• Are the description of the material and the methods detailed enough to allow repeating the experiment?
• Do the experimental results substantiate the conclusions made and do they include all the parameters having being considered?
• Do the researchresults contribute a newer and betterinsight into the problem under investigation?
• Is the manuscript of the necessary scientific level, do its structure meet all the requirements, are the references accurate and is their number adequte?
• Do the figures and tables match the content of the article, are they informative?
• Is the use of statistical methods correct and adequate?

The review is concluded with general assessment of the article and one of the following recommendations:

• to accept the article without any changes
• to accept the article with some minor changes
• to accept the article with some important changes
• to rewrite the article for subsequent submission as a new one
• to reject the article

All comments of the Reviewer should be detailed and negative opinions should be rationalized.

The signature of the Reviewer is witnessed by the official stamp of the Reviewer’s place of employment.

2.6. Printed and electronic copies of the reviews are kept in the Editorial Office.

If the review advocates some minor changes and improvements in the text of the article it is being forwarded to the author. The latter is recommended to accept them and the article is published after the changes having been made.

If the review advocates some more important changes and improvements in the text of the article it is being forwarded to the author. A new variant of the article and the author's response to comments from Reviewer is being subjected to re-reviewing. Each comment is discussed separately.

Otherwise the review is forwarded to the author for a new manuscript to be written taking into account the Reviewer’s comments.

If the author does not agree with the Reviewer’s opinion he may submit a reasoned answer to the Editorial Board. The following peer review process is determined by the Chief Editor.

The final decision concerning the publication is made by the Editorial Board taking into account the review(s) submitted and a reasoned answer by the author(s).

2.7. Submitted reviews should be kept at the Editorial Office for five years after signing it by Reviewer. A review has to be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.