Approved by the Editorial Board of the journal on February 6, 2014


The order of reviewing manuscripts in the journal Vestnik Universiteta

1. The publication reviews all materials coming to the editorial board that are relevant to its subject matter, with a view to their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the topic of peer-reviewed materials and have published in the last 3 years on the subject of the article being reviewed. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.

2. The author can independently submit a review of his manuscript to his supervisor or an independent specialist in the relevant field of science and / or practice. In this case, the editorial staff has the right to send the article for additional review independently.

3. The manuscript of the scientific article submitted to the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the editorial board of the journal for compliance with its profile and requirements for design. With a positive decision of the editorial board on accepting an article for consideration, it is sent for review to a specialist – a doctor or candidate of science, who has the closest scientific topic to the topic of the article. To review the manuscripts submitted to the publication, leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge are involved. The reviewers can be members of the editorial board of the journal, as well as the teaching staff of the State University of Management, highly qualified external experts and practitioners.
4. The manuscript is submitted to the referee in printed and (or) electronic form without indicating the name, title, place of work of the authors. Reviewers are notified that the materials they send are private property of the authors and contain information that can not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies and transmit the received materials to third parties. The review is conducted confidentially for the authors, is of a closed nature. The editors of the publication send copies of reviews or motivated refusals to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertake to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the relevant request to the editorial office..
5. The review period is determined by the editor-in-chief and is established in consultation with the reviewer, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most expeditious publication of the manuscript, but can not exceed one month from the receipt of the manuscript to the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing within one week from the receipt of the manuscript and notify the editor-in-chief about it in writing.
6. The review covers the following issues:
  •  whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal;
  • whether the contents of the manuscript have scientific novelty;
  • correspondence of the manuscript to the scientific level of the journal;
  • it is expedient to publish the manuscript taking into account the literature published on this issue and whether it is of interest to the readers of the journal;
  • hat exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the drawbacks of the manuscript, what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

7. The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author and the editorial staff on the improvement of the manuscript. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at increasing the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The final part of the review should contain reasoned conclusions about the manuscript in general and a clear recommendation containing one of the following options:

  • recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in the journal;
  • recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in the journal after finalization, taking into account the comments;
  • do not recommend the manuscript for publication.

8. In the case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the manuscript, the author is sent the text of the review with the proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article, or to argue them (partially or completely) with arguments. The finalized (revised) author of the manuscript is sent again to the review.

9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to apply to the editorial office of the journal with a reasoned request in writing about sending his manuscript to the reviewer for another referee with the corresponding arguments in circulation. In this case, the editorial office sends the manuscript to a second (additional) review, or provides the author with a reasoned refusal.

10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the appropriateness and timing of publication after the review is taken by the editor-in-chief and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the journal. The editorial office of the journal informs about the author’s decision taken by sending a written reasoned response by e-mail or otherwise.