Economics of Development
Economics of Development
ISSN 1683-1942 e-ISSN 2304-6155 UDC 33
DOI: 10.63341/econ
Submit an article

Peer Review Process

The manuscript review (expert evaluation) process in the Economics of Development is a vital stage in ensuring the high scientific and theoretical standards of the publication. The review process aims to carefully select authors’ materials for publication, provide an objective assessment of their quality, and determine their compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of objectivity and publication ethics standards.
 
1. Double-blind peer review 
The Economics of Development journal employs a double-blind peer review system. This means:
  • Reviewers are unaware of the authors' personal details. Reviewers are not provided with any personal information such as the authors’ names, organisation, or contact details, which helps prevent any influence from the authors on the article’s evaluation. 
  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Authors do not have access to information about the reviewers, ensuring the objectivity and independence of the review process. 
 
2. Compliance check 
Before review, articles undergo a check for compliance with the submission requirements outlined in the “Terms of Publication” section. This includes checking the article’s format, structure, and authorship rights. Only after this is the article eligible for peer review.
 
3. Initial expert assessment 
The initial assessment of the article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy. They assess whether the article aligns with the journal’s scope and whether it meets the formatting requirements. In the event of a conflict of interest (for instance, when the editor-in-chief is an author or has other connections with the authors), the assessment is carried out by the deputy Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board member with no conflict of interest.
 
4. Submission for peer review 
After the initial check, the article is handed to the technical editor, who:
  • Assigns a registration code to the article. 
  • Removes all information about the authors (anonymises the article) to ensure transparency in the review process. 
The anonymised article is then sent to:
  • A member of the Editorial Board responsible for the scientific field of the article. 
  • Two external reviewers who are independent experts in the relevant scientific field. 
Reviewers must be independent of the authors and have no conflict of interest. They must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author, nor have personal or professional connections with the authors that might influence their evaluation.
 
5. Article evaluation by reviewers 
The review process includes evaluating the article on the following aspects:
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope: The reviewer checks whether the article aligns with the topic stated in its title. 
  • Relevance and novelty of the scientific problem: The reviewer assesses whether the article is timely and addresses new and important issues for the scientific community. 
  • Justification of practical significance: The reviewer examines whether the research has practical value and if the results can be applied in the real world. 
  • Value for a broad audience: The reviewer evaluates whether the article will be useful and interesting to a wide scientific audience. 
 
6. Formulation of the review 
Reviewers select one of the following recommendations:
  • Recommend the article for publication without changes. 
  • Recommend the article for publication after minor revisions. 
  • Recommend the article for publication after major revisions. 
  • Do not recommend the article for publication. 
If the review suggests revisions, the reviewers must provide written, reasoned explanations for the rejection or required changes. All reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years from the article’s publication date.
 
7. Notification of authors 
After receiving the review, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision regarding the article and communicates it to the authors. If revisions are required, the review is sent without identifying the reviewer. The revised version of the article is then sent for re-review. If the reviewers believe the changes do not meet their requirements, the article may be rejected.
 
8. Final decision 
The Editor-in-Chief analyses all reviews and makes the final decision on publication. They take into account all recommendations, arguments from the reviewers, and the article’s compliance with the journal’s requirements. If the article involves the personal interests of the editor (for instance, if the editor is the author or has a family relationship with the author), the decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
 
9. Conflict of interest removal 
All reviewers and Editorial Board members must eliminate any conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review process. This includes:
  • Excluding a reviewer or Editorial Board member who has family or professional ties with the author of the article. 
  • Banning the review of articles where the reviewer or Editorial Board member is the author or co-author, or has other personal or professional interests. 
 
10. Review period 
The typical review period for articles is 2-4 weeks. The average time to the first decision on an article is 4-8 weeks.
This process ensures a high level of publication quality and guarantees that only scientifically significant and well-prepared articles will be published in the journal.