THE PROCEDURE OF REVIEWING THE GENDER IN THE ECONOMICS. FINANCES. MANAGEMENT: TOPICAL ISSUES OF SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
All articles submitted to the editorial board, except for reviews and informational reports, go through the review process. The purpose of peer review is to promote the strict selection of author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective evaluation of the content of the scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article. Only articles that are scientifically valuable and contribute to solving pressing economic problems and problems are accepted for publication. The degree of compliance with the rules of article preparation and abstracts for the publication in the collection of scientific works "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice. "
According to the journal's editorial policy, the review process is anonymous, both for the reviewer and the authors. The main purpose of the peer review process is to eliminate cases of poor research practice and to ensure that the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted are consistent and maintained. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, the reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating violations.
Reviewers are advised that the manuscripts they submit are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the non-disclosable information. Reviewers are not allowed to make a copy of the article submitted for review or to use knowledge of the content of the article prior to its publication. Reviewing takes place on a confidential basis, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers' comments, and final decision to publish) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or a statement about the falsity or falsification of the material of the article. The author of the peer-reviewed paper is given the opportunity to read the text of the review, in particular if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.
Reviews are certified in the order established by the institution where the reviewer works. The review must be signed by the reviewer, indicating the position, academic degree, and academic title.The responsible secretary within 7 days informs the authors about the receipt of the article, determines the correspondence of the article of the journal profile, requirements for design and sends it for review to the member of the editorial board, which has the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article. Review period for maximal publication of the article up to 5 days.
The review should be signed by the reviewer, indicating the position, academic degree and academic title. If the article is rejected from the publication, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal. The originals of the reviews are kept in the edition of the scientific journal "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice."
ETHICAL REVIEWS OF REVIEWERS
The purpose of reviewing the articles coming to the edition of the scientific collection "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice" is to uphold the highest ethical standards of research, according to which the beginning of the work of the reviewer should be preceded by the awareness of the requirements for ethics in scientific publications. Orientation of the process of reviewing submitted to the scientific collection of scientific works "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice" The COPE Committee's Articles on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the scientific experience of Vinnitsya National Agrarian University improve the quality of print materials, overcome bias and injustice when rejecting or accepting articles.
Policy of the collection of scientific works "Economics. Finances.Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice".The following are the main ethical standards that should be guided by the subjects of the review process:
• if the reviewer is uncertain that his / her qualification is in line with the level and direction of the research article, he / she should immediately refuse to review;
• the purpose of the reviewer is to objectively evaluate the quality of the article submitted and to determine its degree of conformity with scientific, literary and ethical standards;
• to ensure the right of every author to the intellectual property of the reviewer, any use of the received arguments and conclusions of the author is prohibited without the permission of the last one;
• in case of conflict of interest of the research outcomes with the personal development of the reviewer, or in the presence of professional or personal relations of the reviewer with the author, which may influence the judgment of the reviewer, he / she should return the article indicating the conflict of interest;
• the priority is the confidentiality of the peer-reviewed article, with the view that the reviewer is forbidden to disclose information from the article or discuss the unpublished conclusions and recommendations of the author with other colleagues (except when the reviewer needs some specialist advice, for someone else's consultation);
• The seriousness of the accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to adequately and reasonably justify his or her own comments. Any allegation of plagiarism or biased citation should be accompanied by a link (the reviewer's findings should not be such as to discredit the author without serious grounds for doing so);
• If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of the data, he / she must without fail ask the editorial board to request a collective review of the author's article;
• since the reviewer should note any instances of insufficient citation by the authors of other scholarly work in the peer-reviewed article, comments regarding the citation of the reviewer's own research are identified as biased;
• maintaining a regular periodical of the publication of the scientific journal "Economics. Finance. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice" requires the reviewer of his own discipline, which is revealed due to the timely submission of a review of the article and in a respectful attitude to the authors of the article (in case of manifestation of lack of understanding or the systematic provision of poor quality reviews or breach of review terms for this reviewer is terminated).
PROCEDURE OF REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPTS OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
1.The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the policy of the collection of scientific works "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice" and rules for preparing articles and scientific abstracts for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further review, as reported by their authors.
2. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are forwarded to the research profile by one reviewer and, if necessary, by two reviewers. Appoints Reviewers Editor-in-Chief of "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice", or on his behalf, Deputy Editor-in-Chief. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, some articles by eminent scientists as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
3. Regarding the receipt of the article for review, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials based on the suitability of the author's own research direction and the absence of any conflict of interest. In case of any competing interests, the reviewer should refuse reviewing and inform the editorial board. The latter should be sent on the appointment of another reviewer.
4. Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind reviewing (two-way "blind" reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers is e-mailed through the technical secretary of the journal "Economics. Finances. Management: Topical Issues of Science and Practice". At the request of the reviewer, and in agreement with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction of the author and the reviewer can take place in an open mode (this decision is made only if the open interaction will improve the style and logic of the presentation of the study material).
5. For all articles submitted for review, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined with the help of appropriate software (in particular, freeware of the service "eTXTAntiplagiate").
6. After reviewing the article, the reviewer fills out a standardized form (Appendix 1) containing summary recommendations and sends a signed review form to the journal within 5 days of receipt of the article for review. Generally accepted guidelines for the consistency and organization of the review process (ReviewQualityInstrument) have been used and generalized in preparing the form. The editorial staff informs the author of the review results by email.
7.If the reviewer points out the need to make certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments in the preparation of the updated version of the article or to substantiate them. The revised version of the article is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion about the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the reviewer of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.
8. In case of disagreement with the opinion