Requirements for peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication to the editorial office of the journal MICROECONOMICS

Scientific articles submitted to the editors of the journal in print or online are to be peer reviewed.

Within a week, the managing editor checks whether the submitted article meets the journals formatting requirements and addresses it to be considered by the executive secretary who determines the consistency of the manuscript with the journal profile and its scientific value and appoints a peer reviewer.

The peer reviewer may be an Editorial Board member or an external editor in the area consistent with the theme of the article.

The peer review process takes one month. This period is controlled by the editorial staff; it may be prolonged depending on the situation and at the peer reviewers request.

The peer review should indicate the consistency of the content of the article to its title, characterize its relevance and scientific level, advantages and disadvantages, and evaluates its expediency of publication. Based on this evaluation, the peer reviewer infers the further fate of the article: 1) the article is recommended for publication in the form submitted; b) the shortcomings marked by the peer review should be corrected; c) the article needs to be additionally peer reviewed by another editor; d) the article is found unsuitable for publication.

The editorial staff sends authors the peer reviews of submitted manuscripts online. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the peer reviews must be addressed to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science or the Ministry without fail.

If the peer reviewer recommends to correct or to modify the article, the managing editor will send the author the text of a peer review, by proposing to take into account the criticism when preparing a new version of the paper or to partially or wholly reject it in a well-reasoned way. The article finalized by the author should be submitted again for peer review.

A motivated refusal should be addressed to an author whose article is not accepted for publication. When the occasion requires, the manuscript may be additionally peer reviewed by another editor if the author insists on this.

The Editorial Board will make a final decision on publication and its timing by a majority vote by an open show of hands. In some instances when its peer review is positive, the article may be published by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief. The latter is to make decisions in conflict of interests. The decision of the Editorial Board on each article is to be recorded in its meeting minutes.

Original peer reviews are to be kept at the editorial office for 5 years.