About

Focus and Scope

Russian Journal of Economics is a quarterly journal that publishes high-quality research articles on all fields of economics related to policy issues. Prominent on the RuJE agenda is original research on the Russian economy, economic policy and institutional reform with broader international context and sound theoretical background. This focus is not exclusive and the Journal welcomes submissions in all areas of applied and theoretical economics, especially those with policy implications. Journal’s audience includes professional economists working in academia, government and the private sector. All submissions undergo rigorous double-blind peer review.


Editorial Policies


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. All articles published open access are free for everyone to read, download, copy, and distribute. Permitted third party reuse is defined by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) (see Copyright Notice). 
The authors do not have any publication charges for open access. All articles are free of charge thanks to the founders:

Pensoft journals are Sherpa green journals that is: author can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF.


Copyright Notice

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to the journal, authors certify that: 

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. 
  • The work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review or thesis); it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; its publication has been approved by all author(s) and responsible authorities — tacitly or explicitly — of the institutes where the work has been carried out. 
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere. 
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement:

Copyright

  • Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s).
  • Authors grant NP "Voprosy Ekonomiki" the exclusive license to publish and distribute the article (including any derivative products), and to sublicense such rights, including for commercial purposes, and exploit all subsidiary rights.
  • The article and any associated published materials are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0):

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Anyone is free

to Share — to copy and redistribute the verbatim copy of the material.

Under the following conditions:

  • Attribution. You must give credit to the original author(s), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.  
  • NonCommercial. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • NoDerivativesIf you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

The full legal code of this license.

Copyright Transfers

Any usage rights are regulated through the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). For non-commercial purposes anyone is free to copy and distribute the article as long as the original author is credited and provided that the article is not altered or modified (see above). Permission of NP "Voprosy Ekonomiki" is required for commercial use and for all derivative works, including compilations and translations (please consult rujec@rujec.org).


Privacy Statement

The personal information used on this website is to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal. It will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.


Authors Guidelines


Article Structure

Where possible, the following standard headings should be used: Introduction, Material and methods, Theory/Calculation, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgements, References, Appendices.

  • Introduction − State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
  • Material and methods − Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described.
  • Theory/Calculation − A Theory section should extend, not repeat, the background to the article already dealt with in the Introduction and lay the foundation for further work. In contrast, a Calculation section represents a practical development from a theoretical basis.
  • Results − Results should be clear and concise.
  • Discussion − This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
  • Conclusions −This should state clearly the main conclusions of the research and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance.
  • Acknowledgments − Collate acknowledgments in a separate section at the end of the article before the references and do not, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here those individuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing assistance or proof reading the article, etc.).
  • References − The list of References should be included after the final section of the main article body. Authors are requested to include links to online sources of articles, whenever possible. See also the section on Citations and References.
  • Appendices − If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, Eq. (B.1) and so on. Similarly for tables and figures: Table A.1; Fig. A.1, etc.

Divide your article into clearly defined and numbered sections (1, 2, ...). Subsections should be numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract, acknowledgments, references, and appendices is not included in section numbering).


Main Text

Due to the double-blind peer review system, you have to submit your manuscript (apart from the letter to the editor and supplementary material) as two separate files (for further details, see under Submission Guidelines):

(i) Cover part (with personal information)

Authors and Affiliations: Provide the complete names of all authors. Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly. Present the authors’ institutional affiliation (e.g. university, institute), city, state/province (if applicable), and country below the names. Indicate all affiliations with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author’s name and in front of the appropriate address. Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication, also post-publication. It is the corresponding author's responsibility to ensure that the author list, and the individual contributions to the study are accurate and complete. Contact details must be kept up to date by the corresponding author.

(ii) Main part (anonymised)

Title: The title should be in a sentence case (only scientific, geographic or person names should be with a first capital letter, i.e. Nobel Prize, Stockholm, etc.), and should include an accurate, clear and concise description of the reported work, avoiding abbreviations.

Abstract: A concise and factual abstract is required. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, References should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.

Keywords: Please have your keywords ready for input into the submission module.

Body Text: The text should be in single-column format. Keep the layout of the text as simple as possible. Most formatting codes will be removed and replaced on processing the article. In particular, do not use the word processor’s options to hyphenate words. Single-space all material (text, quotations, figure legends, tables, references, etc.). Use a 12-point font (preferably Times New Roman). Do use italics for emphasis. Underlining of any text is not acceptable. Short quotations should be embedded in the text and enclosed in double quotation marks ("). Long quotations should be on a separate line. Single quotation marks are to be used only for a quotation that occurs within another quotation. To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the "spell-check" and "grammar-check" functions of your word processor.

Footnotes: Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using superscript Arabic numbers. Place footnotes to tables below the table body and indicate them with superscript lowercase letters. Do not include footnotes in the Reference list. Table footnotes: Place footnotes to tables below the table body and indicate them with superscript lowercase letters.

Math formulae: Present simple formulae in the line of normal text where possible and use the solidus (/) instead of a horizontal line for small fractional terms, e.g., X/Y. Symbols for variables and constants, but not for mathematical abbreviations (log, ln, etc.) should be italicized in the text, equations and illustrations. Number consecutively any equations that have to be displayed separately from the text (if referred to explicitly in the text).

Tables: Each table should be numbered in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, 2, 3 etc.). Tables should also have a title that summarizes the whole table, maximum 10 words. Detailed legends may then follow, but should be concise. Tables should be embedded within the text, in portrait format (note that tables on a landscape page must be reformatted onto a portrait page or submitted as additional files). These will be typeset and displayed in the final published form of the article. Such tables should be formatted using the 'Table object' in a word processing program to ensure that columns of data are kept aligned when the file is sent electronically for review. Do not use tabs to format tables or separate text. All columns and rows should be visible, please make sure that borders of each cell display as black lines. Color and shading should not be used; neither should commas be used to indicate decimal values. Please use a full stop to denote decimal values (i.e., 0.007 cm, 0.7 mm).


Citations and References

Citations within the text: Before submitting the manuscript, please check each citation in the text against the References and vice-versa to ensure that they match exactly. Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results and personal communications are not recommended in the reference list, but may be mentioned in the text. If these references are included in the reference list they should follow the standard reference style of the journal and should include "Unpublished manuscript". Citation of a reference as "in press" implies that the item has been accepted for publication.

Citations in the text should be formatted as follows:

  • Single author: the author’s name (without initials) and the year of publication (separated by comma).
  • Two authors: both authors’ names (separated by "and") and the year of publication.
  • Three or more authors: first author’s name followed by "et al." and the year of publication.

Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically. Examples: "as demonstrated (Gurvich, 2006a, 2006b, 2011; Korhonen and Ledyaeva, 2010). Kramer et al. (2000) have recently shown ...."

References: It is important to format the references properly because all references will be linked electronically as completely as possible to the papers cited. References should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the same year must be identified by the letters "a", "b", "c", etc., placed after the year of publication. It is desirable to add a DOI (digital object identifier) number for either the full-text or title and abstract of the article as an addition to traditional volume and page numbers. If a DOI is lacking, it is recommended to add a link to any online source of an article.

References should follow the referencing style used by the American Psychological Association (APA). Details can be found here. Examples:

Reference to a journal publication:
Beck, T., & Laeven, L. (2006). Institution building and growth in transition economies. Journal of Economic Growth, 11 (2), 157–186.

Reference to a book:
Friedman, M. (1956). A theory of the consumption function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reference to a chapter in an edited book: 

Giannoni, M., & Woodford, M. (2004). Optimal inflation-targeting rules. In B. Bernanke, & M. Woodford (Eds), The inflation-targeting debate (pp. 93–172). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Figures and Illustrations

General points:

Submit source files of figures as a separate file(s) in addition to the text of the manuscript.

  • Do not submit graphics that are disproportionately large for the content.
  • Use a logical naming convention for your files.
  • Aim to make graphics in black and white.
  • Only use the following fonts in your illustrations: Times New Roman, Symbol.
  • Number the figures according to their sequence in the text.
  • All figures should be referenced consecutively in the manuscript.
  • Provide captions to figures separately.

Acceptable file formats: Aim to use MS Office Excel for your figures creation and please supply "as is" in the native document format (XLS or XLSX). If your figures are created in other MS Office application (Word, PowerPoint) then please supply "as is". If your figures are created in other than MS Office application, when your electronic artwork is finalized, please "save as" or convert the images to following image file formats: EPS, WMF, EMF, PDF — vector drawings, embed all used fonts.

Not acceptable file formats:

  • Files that are optimized for screen use (like GIF, BMP, PICT, WPG);
  • Bitmapped line drawings or color (grayscale) photographs (e.g., TIFF or JPEG).

Figure captions: Ensure that each illustration has a caption. Supply captions separately, not attached to the figure. A caption should comprise a brief title (not on the figure itself) and a description of the illustration. Keep text in the illustrations themselves to a minimum but explain all symbols and abbreviations used.

Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures or tables that have previously been published elsewhere.


Supplementary Files

Online publishing allows an author to provide datasets, tables, video files, or other information as supplementary information, greatly increasing the impact of the submission. Uploading of such files is possible in Step 6 of the submission process.

The maximum file size for each Supplementary File is 20 MB.

The Supplementary Files will not be displayed in the printed version of the article but will exist as linkable supplementary downloadable files in the online version.

While submitting a supplementary file the following information should be completed:

  • File format (including name and a URL of an appropriate viewer if format is unusual)

  • Title of data

  • Description of data

All supplementary files should be referenced explicitly by file name within the body of the article, e.g. 'See supplementary file 1: Table 1" for the original data used to perform this analysis.

Ideally, the supplementary files should not be platform-specific, and should be viewable using free or widely available tools. Suitable file formats are:

For supplementary documentation:

  • PDF (Adobe Acrobat)

For animations:

  • SWF (Shockwave Flash)

For movies:

  • MOV (QuickTime)

  • MPG (MPEG)

For datasets:

  • XLS (Excel spreadsheet)

  • CSV (Comma separated values)

  • ODS (OpenOffice spreadsheets)

As for images, file names should be given in the standard file extensions. This is especially important for Macintosh users, since the Mac OS does not enforce the use of standard file extensions. Please also make sure that each additional file is a single table, figure or movie (please do not upload linked worksheets or PDF files larger than one sheet).


Revising your article

Authors must submit the revised version of the manuscript using Track Changes/Comments tools of Word so that the Subject Editor can see the corrections and additions.

Authors must address all critiques of the referees in a response letter to the editor and submit it along with the revised manuscript through the online editorial system. In case a response letter is not submitted by the authors, the editor has the right to reject the manuscript without further evaluation.

When submitting corrections to proofs (during the layout stage), authors must upload the latest proof (in PDF format) containing their revisions as track changes.


Submission Guidelines


Submission Procedure

Already have a Username/Password?

Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?

Go to Registration

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

Submission of manuscripts to this journal is possible only through the online submission module. We kindly request authors to consult the Focus and Scope section prior to submission. In order to submit a manuscript to the journal, authors are required to register with the journal and/or to login. Once logged in, you will find the online submission system by clicking the "Submit a manuscript" button.

The manuscript submission process is separated into the following steps:

  • Step 1: Start your submission specifying the manuscript type and completing the submission checklist.
  • Step 2: All articles are free of charge.
  • Step 3: Submission metadata: typing in the author(s) names and affiliation, title, abstract, keywords, and other metadata.
  • Step 4: Submission metadata: assigning JEL classification categories for your manuscript using hierarchical classification trees.
  • Step 5: Submission metadata: adding supporting agencies, author’s contributions, conflict of interest and comments to the editors.
  • Step 6: Uploading the manuscript pdf file for review (without indications of authorship) and all other required files (see below for details on how to prepare them).
  • Step 7: Uploading supplementary files (see below for details) and associated metadata (note that the system requires you to enter the authors of the files; this information is not visible to the reviewers) and confirmation.

Stepwise guidance on new manuscript submission, with screenshots of the interface embedded, is available online in this section of the Users' Manual.


Organizing Your Submission

Before starting your submission please make sure that your manuscript is formatted in accordance with the Authors Guidelines.

Manuscripts submitted to this journal must be divided into separate files (no larger than 20 MB each) to allow their processing by our software. Before attempting an online submission, please prepare the following files:

(a) Letter to the editor (optional).

(b) Cover part of the manuscript with all personal information.

(c) Anonymised main part of the manuscript with all figures and tables embedded, in two formats: pdf and in editable format (doc, docx or rtf).

In step 5 of the submission, you have the option to copy your letter to the editor into the field "Comments to the Editor".

In step 6 of the submission, you will be asked to upload your manuscript files in the following way:

  1. Cover part of the manuscript with all personal information (doc, docx or rtf)

This part is for the handling Subject Editor only and will not be sent to the reviewers. It should contain the following parts: manuscript type, title, author names and affiliations, indication of corresponding author, author contributions, acknowledgements, e-mails and ORCIDs.

  1. Manuscript file for review (pdf)

This is the anonymised main part of the manuscript, with all figures and tables embedded, in pdf format. It must not include any personal information. The total file size must be no larger than 20 MB.

  1. Manuscript file (doc, docx or rtf) and additional files for production

These consist of the following items:

(a) Anonymised main part of the manuscript in editable format (doc, docx or rtf), identical to the pdf for review.

(b) Figures (in vector format) in separate files.

Figures in vector format must be submitted during the same submission process as the additional files (Step 6) in one of the following image file formats: XLS, XLSX, WMF, EMF, EPS, PDF, not larger than 20 MB each).

In step 7 of the submission, you will be asked to upload the Supplementary material.

Supplementary files should have their own legends. However, no authors' names must be given at this stage in any of the files because reviewers will have access to them. (Note that the system requires you to enter the authors of the files in separate fields. This information is not visible to the reviewers.)

Submissions that do not meet these formal requirements will be returned without review.

Should you have any technical problems in submitting a manuscript to this journal, please contact the Editorial Office at journals@pensoft.net.

We encourage authors to send an inquiry to the Editorial Office prior to submitting a manuscript. The purpose of the presubmission inquiry is to solicit rapid initial feedback on the suitability of the manuscript for publication in this journal. Pre-submission inquiries may be sent to the Editorial Office at rujec@rujec.org.


Guidelines for Editors


How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed after login

  1. Login is possible after registration at the journal's website. Our Editorial Office will register all first-time editors and reviewers. New users will receive an automated notification with a request to confirm registration and account information, and options for setting a password, email alerts and other features.  
    Note: All users can use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.
    Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated with it, for all your operations at www.pensoft.net. We highly recommend that, in case the user has two or more different accounts, to merge these through user's profile.  
    Note: Users can at any time change the initially set password and correct personal details using their user's profile menu (by clicking on the user's name in the upper right corner of the screen appearing after login).
  2. If you have forgotten your password, please use the function Forgot your password? or write to request it from journals@pensoft.net.

There are two ways to access a manuscript

  1. After login, please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on My Tasks button in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as Author or Reviewer or Subject Editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped by categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you directly to the manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Editors

Subject, or Academic, editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the papers. They take the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and their names are listed as Academic Editor in the header of each published article.

The editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system informs the Subject Editor about any change in the status of a manuscript, from submission to publication.

The online editorial system is designed to save time and effort for Subject Editors. There is no need for editors to visit the journal’s website to keep track of the manuscripts they are responsible for; the online system will inform the Subject Editor when an invited reviewer has accepted or declined to review. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions what action is needed at each stage, as well as a link to the respective manuscript (see How to Access a Manuscript).

Subject Editors are not expected to provide thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to good practices in clear and concise academic writing. It is the author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English. The Subject Editor should not hesitate to recommend either Reject, or Reject, but resubmission encouraged PRIOR to the peer-review process, in cases when a manuscript is scientifically poor and/or does not conform to journal’s style, and/or is written in poor English (see Note under point 1 below how to reject a manuscript prior to peer review).


Stepwise Description of the Editorial Process

  1. Once a manuscript is submitted, the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) briefly checks if the manuscript for conforms with the journal's Focus, Scope, Policies and style requirements and decides whether it is potentially suitable for publication and can be processed for review, or rejected immediately, or returned to the author for improvement and resubmission.
    Note: The Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief can reject/return a manuscript prior to review process via the buttons Reject or Return to the author for correction in the Editorial tab. These buttons become active only after a justification for the rejection or return is provided in the text field.

  2. At this stage, the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) can also check the manuscript for plagiarism via the iThenticate service by clicking on the "ïTehnticate report" button.

  3. When a manuscript is suitable, the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) assigns it to the Subject Editor responsible for the respective topic 

  4. The assigned Subject Editor next reads the manuscript to decide whether it is potentially suitable for publication and can be processed for review, or rejected immediately, or returned to the author for improvement and re-submission. Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or linguistically or grammatically poor English language.
    Note: There are two ways for a Subject Editor to reject a manuscript prior to review process:
  • Through the buttons Reject or Reject, but re-submission encouraged in the Editorial tab. These buttons become active only after a justification for the rejection is provided in the text field.

  • Through an email to the Editorial office explaining the reason for rejection. The manuscript will be then rejected/returned through the online editorial system and the respective notification email will be sent from the Editorial Office.

  1. In case the manuscript is acceptable for peer review, the Subject Editor has to invite reviewers by clicking on the Invite reviewers link. The Subject Editor can select from a list of reviewers, starting with the ones suggested by the authors during the submission process, and followed by the reviewers who are already listed in the database, or add new reviewers (see #7).

  2. Once reviewers are chosen, the Subject Editor has to click the Invite reviewers green button at the end of the page which will generate email templates with review invitations. It is highly recommended that the Subject Editor adds some personal words above the standard email text of the review invitation.

  3. In case a reviewer is absent from our users' data-base, the Subject Editor can add his/her names and email through the Add new reviewer link, which will appear once the search field reveals no results. It is possible that the needed reviewer has already been registered in the Pensoft database either as customer or author/reviewer of another journal. If this is the case, then his/her names, affiliation and other metadata will automatically appear once the e-mail field is populated in the Create user online form.

  4. The Subject Editor receives a notification email when the Reviewer agrees or declines to review. The Subject Editor can appoint additional Reviewers if some of the invited reviewers decline.

  5. Once all Reviewers submit their reviews, the Subject Editor receives an email notification, inviting him/her to consider Reviewers’ opinions, read through the manuscript and take a decision through the Proceed button.
    Note: Editorial comments can be added in the online editorial form, alternatively, comments and corrections can be added in a manuscript file (either on the PDF version or in the text file), which can be uploaded during finalization of the editorial decision process.

  6. At this stage, the Subject Editor should take a decision either to (1) accept the manuscript, (2) reject it, (3) recommend Major or Minor Revisions, or open a second review round. In case the manuscript is not rejected, but recommended for Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Acceptance, the author is expected to submit a revised version within a certain period of time.
    Note 1: Authors must submit revised versions as a text file using Track Changes/Comments tools of Word so that the Subject Editor can see their corrections/additions. Authors must reply to the critiques and comments of reviewers separately ina point-by-point document. The point-by-point may be a separate document (preferred) or pasted into the provided box in the online editorial system.
    Note 2: During the second, or next, review round, the Subject Editor may decide to ask reviewers to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript. He/she may also make a decision based on the author’s responses and the revised version of the manuscript without asking additional reviewers' support.

  7. After acceptance, the manuscript will go to layout and proofreading. The Subject Editor will be notified by email when the final proof is uploaded on the journal’s website. The Subject Editor is expected to look at the proofs and notify the Editorial Office through email in case the proofs need improvement.

  8. The Subject Editor may always access information on the manuscripts which have been edited by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Subject Editor on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned.


Guidelines for Reviewers

This journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed after login

  1. Login is possible after registration at the journal's website. Our Editorial Office will register all first-time editors and reviewers. New users will receive an automated notification with a request to confirm registration and account information, and options for setting a password, email alerts and other features.  
    Note: All users can use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.
    Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated with it, for all your operations at www.pensoft.net. We highly recommend that, in case the user has two or more different accounts, to merge these through user's profile.  
    Note: Users can at any time change the initially set password and correct personal details using their user's profile menu (by clicking on the user's name in the upper right corner of the screen appearing after login).
  2. If you have forgotten your password, please use the function Forgot your password? or write to request it from journals@pensoft.net.

There are two ways to access a manuscript

  1. After login, please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on My Tasks button in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as Author or Reviewer or Subject Editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped by categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you directly to the manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Reviewers

This journal uses a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers should NOT disclose their identity. The peer review and editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system sends the Reviewer a review request, initiated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office. The online system will also send reminders and will confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage along with the link to the respective manuscript (see section How to Access a Manuscript).

Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, we shall be grateful for them to inform both the Author and the Subject Editor about this in the report. It is the Author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English. It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if Reviewers spot such errors during the reading process and correct them. Reviewers are also asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

Each manuscript will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible.

Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the editor and the authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

Reviewers are then asked to judge the manuscript on the following criteria:

  1. Novelty score (How novel is the idea / the software capabilities?) or Response score for Response papers (does the response present novel and complementary arguments or opposing views to the original paper?)
  2. Feasibility/likelihood/applicability score for Perspective and Response papers (does the idea/hypothesis arise from or is supported by rigorous arguments? Is the idea or hypothesis testable? Is the new concept, term or definition useful?) or Methodology score for Research papers, Rapid communications and Horizon scanning papers (is the methodology used/analysis conducted scientifically sound?) or Utility score for Software description (Is the software responding to a well identified need? Is it likely to be used by the scientific community?)
  3. Scholarship score (the authors demonstrate good knowledge and appropriate use of the current literature)
  4.  Literacy score (English, grammar, clarity and logical flow reaches publication standard)

In addition to the written review, Reviewers are asked to respond to a short questionnaire that serves as a Reviewer’s checklist and ensures a standardised, comprehensive review.

When possible, the final decision is made on the basis of the peer reviews. In cases of strong disagreement between the reports or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Subject Editor can assess these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and/or with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice from the Subject Editors or the Editorial Board.

During a second review round, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised version against their recommendations submitted during the first review round.

Reviewers should be polite and constructive. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.


Stepwise Description of the Peer Review Process

  1. This journal uses a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers should NOT disclose their identities. 

  2. The Reviewer receives a review request generated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office and is expected to either agree to provide a review, or decline, through pressing the Will do the review or Unable to do the review link in the online editorial system.
    Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails (see How to Access a Manuscript above).

  3. The review should be submitted through the Proceed button. The review consists of:

  • a simple online questionnaire to be answered by ticking the YesNo, Moderately or N/A;

  • comments addressed to the Author and the Subject Editor in the online form;

  • associated files (corrected/commented manuscript file, review submitted in a separate text file, etc.), if any.

    Note: Reviewers can insert corrections and comments in the manuscript review version (PDF) and/or in the manuscript text file (usually Microsoft Word). When working in the PDF, please use either the Text Edits or the Sticky Notes tools (available through the menu Tools -> Comments & Markup of the Acrobat Reader). When editing in Microsoft Word please use the Track Changes / Comments tools.
    Note: Associated files should be submitted at the end of the review process by clicking on the Browse button, then selecting the respective file on your computer, and then pressing the Upload button.

  1. The review process is completed by selecting a recommendation from five options:
  • Reject;

  • Reject, but resubmission encouraged;

  • Major Revision;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Accept.

The system will ask for one more confirmation of the selected recommendation before submission. The submitted review cannot be changed after submission.
Note: Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or grammatically poor English language.

  1. Once a Reviewer submits a review of a manuscript, he/she receives an acknowledgement email from the journal.

  2. The submission of the review is also automatically reported to Publons. Reviewers are asked to confirm whether they want their reviews to be recorded on Publons.

  3. When all Reviewers have submitted their reviews, the Subject Editor makes a decision to either accept, reject or request further minor/major revision.

  4. After the Subject Editor's decision, the manuscript is sent back to the author for comments and further revision.

  5. Reviewers are notified via email when the revised version of a manuscript they have reviewed is submitted by the author. They receive a link to the revised version along with the editorial decision and all reviews of the manuscript. Reviewers are also provided with a feedback form should they have any comments on the revised version. 

  6. When an article is published, all Reviewers who have provided a review for the respective manuscript receive an email acknowledgement. In the email, there is a link to view/download the published article.

  7. A Reviewer may always access information on the manuscripts that are being / have been reviewed by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Reviewer on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that have been assigned to you.


Science Communication

Authors are welcome to join forces with the PR teams at our partners ARPHA and Pensoft to communicate and promote their research papers, thereby further increasing the visibility and impact of their work.

While we use the journal’s social media channels to post hand-crafted social media content for each article upon its publication, we offer a range of PR services in order to communicate especially significant scientific findings to a wider audience, such as: Custom social media content, Tailored PR campaign* and Guest blog post (details below).

Please contact i.kostadinova@pensoft.net and m.kolesnikova@pensoft.net to discuss the most suitable approach for your research. We look forward to hearing details about your study and why it should be considered of public interest.

*The Tailored PR campaign is a paid service charged at  € 150. However, we would be happy to consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for science and society.

 

Custom social media content (Free service)

Authors are welcome to propose custom social media content to be distributed via the journal’s social media channels, regardless of whether they have already sought any other of our science communication services.

 Social media posts are expected to:

  • Be up to two sentences long or 280 characters (including links) for Twitter;

  • Be written in a conversational tone;

  • Contain minimal jargon;

  • Include the DOI link of the article;

  • Provide additional information about the study, which is not immediately evident in the text of the article (i.e. the post should not duplicate the title or the abstract);

  • Include attractive non-copyright imagery.

To further increase the outreach of the posts, we strongly suggest that you also send us up to 10 social media accounts (e.g. co-authors, affiliations, funding bodies etc.), relevant to the study.

Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your text at our discretion.

To request our Custom social media content service, contact i.kostadinova@pensoft.net and m.kolesnikova@pensoft.net.

 

Tailored PR campaign (Paid service*)

  • Press release issued via the global science news service Eurekalert! and others (e.g. CORDIS), where appropriate;

  • News announcement personally advertised to our own contacts from the world’s top-tier news media;

  • News announcement disseminated via the journal’s and Pensoft’s social media channels;

  • Blog post issued on ARPHA’s blog (based on the announcement OR written by the author);

  • Additional social media content distributed via the journal’s and ARPHA’s channels;

  • Tracking and sharing of third-party users’ online content concerning the study.

To ensure that we cover all key findings in our announcements, we encourage authors to prepare a brief press release draft using the template and guidelines provided.

Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your text at our discretion. No press announcements will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so. The Tailored PR campaign service is only available for studies published within the past 3 months.

To request our Tailored PR campaign service, contact i.kostadinova@pensoft.net and m.kolesnikova@pensoft.net. Alternatively, select the service upon submitting your manuscript and we will be in touch once your paper is accepted for publication.

*The Tailored PR campaign is a paid service charged at  € 150. However, we would be happy to consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for science and society.

#

Examples

ARPHA's and Pensoft’s PR campaigns regularly make the headlines in top-tier media. Below, you can find examples associated with studies from across our journal portfolio:

  

Guest blog post (Free service)

  • Blog post written by the author of the study and issued on ARPHA’s and Pensoft's blog;

  • Blog post disseminated via the journal’s, ARPHA's and Pensoft's social media channels;

  • Additional social media content distributed via the journal’s, ARPHA's and Pensoft's channels;

  • Tracking and sharing of third-party users’ online content concerning the study.

Blog post drafts are expected to:

  • Be written in free-text format;

  • Be written from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone and minimal jargon;

  • Include at least one commentary quote from an author or a person relevant to the study;

  • Present some curious background information, meant to place the discovery in the right context;

  • Include attractive non-copyright imagery, featuring author attribution.

Guest blog posts are not necessarily associated with studies published in a set time period, as long as their content remains relevant.

Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your text at our discretion. No blog posts will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so.

To request our Guest blog post service, contact i.kostadinova@pensoft.net and m.kolesnikova@pensoft.net.


Tailored PR Campaign

(Paid service*)

We encourage authors, who feel that their work is of particular interest to the wider audience, to email us with a press release draft** (see template and guidelines), outlining the key findings from the study and their public impact. Then, the PR team will work with them to finalise the announcement that will be:

  • Issued on the global science news service Eurekalert! (past examples)
  • Sent out to our media contacts from the world’s top-tier news outlets
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via suitable ARPHA-managed accounts

Following the distribution of the press announcement, our team will be tracking the publicity across news media, blogs and social networks, in order to report back to the author(s), and reshare any prominent media content.

Visit the Media Center section in the About menu to find past examples of published press releases promoting studies published in our journal, as well as the follow-up publicity from around the world.

Request our Tailored PR campaign service by selecting it while completing your submission form and you will be contacted once your manuscript is accepted for publication. Alternatively, contact our PR team  (dissemination@pensoft.net), preferably upon the acceptance of your manuscript.

* The Tailored PR campaign is an extra service charged at EUR 150. However, we would consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for the society.

** Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your press release at their discretion. No press announcements will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so. The service is only available for studies published within the past 3 months.


Guest Blog Post

(Free service)

Authors are strongly encouraged to promote their work and its impact on society to the audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of storytelling in plain language. Ideally, such guest blog posts will be:

  • Written from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone;
  • Written in fluent English;
  • Presenting some curious background information, in order to place the discovery in context;
  • Including attractive non-copyright imagery.

Request our Guest blog post service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, as there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication. Particularly encouraged are follow-up contributions telling the story of, for example, a research paper that has led to an important policy to be set in place; or an article that has met remarkable attention or reactions in the public sphere.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post by the PR team, the contribution will be:

  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse publication of a guest blog post on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards. Our PR team reserves the right to request changes to the text related to formatting or language. No blog posts will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so.

Find past guest blog posts on Pensoft’s blog here


Video Podcasts

(Free service)

To efficiently increase the outreach of their research, authors are suggested to prepare a video contribution (i.e. elevator video pitch, video abstract or topical video), where they present their work to an audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of visual storytelling.

To do so, they are expected to send us a short (up to 02’00’’) video clip, presenting their study in a nutshell, in order to spark the viewer’s further interest in their findings and work, as well as the research topic as a whole. Ideally, such contribution will be:

  • filmed in high quality, preferably with .mp4 file extension with the H.264 video codec;
  • directed from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone and minimal jargon;
  • presented in fluent English or featuring English subtitles;
  • accompanied by a transcript in English;
  • accompanied by a short text introduction for the purposes of a blog post.

Request our Guest video contribution service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, since there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post, the contribution will be:

  • Shared on Pensoft’s YouTube channel;
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog;
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts. 

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse distribution of a guest contribution on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards.


Custom Social Media Content

(Free service)

To help increase the visibility and outreach of their research, authors are welcome to suggest custom social media content to be distributed via suitable Pensoft- and ARPHA-managed social media accounts.

Social media posts are expected to:

  • Be limited to two short sentences or 280 characters (including links);
  • Be written in a conversational tone;
  • Contain minimal jargon;
  • Include the DOI link of the article;
  • Not duplicate the title or abstract of the article;
  • Include attractive non-copyright imagery;
  • Possibly include up to 10 social media accounts, e.g. co-authors (Twitter only), affiliations, funding bodies etc. relevant to the study.

Request our Custom social media content service by contacting our PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net).

Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your text at their discretion.


Media Center

Follow Russian Journal of Economics on Twitter.

Learn about some of the most notable research published in Russian Journal of Economics on ARPHA's blog.

See top news stories from around the globe, mentioning research published in Russian Journal of Economics on The Conversation, UPI, Salon and others.

Find past press releases for Russian Journal of Economics on Eurekalert!

Boost the reach of your paper(s) to a larger audience by making the most of ARPHA and Pensoft’s science communication services.

Download journal promotional leaflet.

Download journal logo.


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

General

The publishing ethics and malpractice policies of Russian Journal of Economics follow the relevant COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) and in case a malpractice is suspected, journal editors will act in accordance with them.

Submission, peer review and editorial process

The peer review and editorial processes are facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. Pensoft journals’ websites display stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions and links. These links are also included in the respective email notification.

General: Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the particular paper. 

  • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 

  • The journals allow a maximum of two rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and, in some cases, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors and Reviewers.

  • The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (2) Major revisions, (3) Reject, but re-submission encouraged and (5) Reject. 

  • If Authors are encouraged to revise and re-submit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. 

  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. 

  • No research can be included in more than one publication.

Responsibility of Authors

  • Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) license.

  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. 

  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. 

  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 

  • Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines.

  • Authors must participate in the peer review process. 

  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. 

  • All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research. 

  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest. 

  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. 

  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

  • Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.   

  • Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g. funding for the article processing charge; language editing or editorial assistance).

  • The Corresponding author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all Authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership of relevant organisations or others.

Responsibility of Reviewers

  • The manuscripts will be reviewed by two or three experts in order to reach first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.

  • Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both Authors and Editor in the report.

  • Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.

  • In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to their expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

  • Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.

  • During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.

  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.

  • Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

  • Further, Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research: (1) Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive? (2) Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend the aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable?  Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?

  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 

  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

  • Reviewers should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Responsibility of Editors

  • Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

  • The Subject Editor takes the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and his/her name is listed as "Academic Editor" in the header of each article.

  • The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. 

  • Editors are expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and correct them.

  • Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication. 

  • Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record. 

  • Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers, unless the later decide to disclose their identities. 

  • Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. 

  • Editors should act if they suspect misconduct and make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem. 

  • Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.

  • Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.

Appeals and open debate

We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors are not allowed to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and choose not to respond to criticisms. 

No Reviewer’s comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the Authors. Criticism of the work is encouraged. Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements. Authors should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Managing Editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting Editorial Board Members and Editors with appeals.

Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers if appropriate. 

The Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and Subject Editors.

The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism.

Misconduct

Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment or processes; (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article. A special case of misconduct is plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. If misconduct is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

Responses to possible misconduct

All allegations of misconduct must be referred to the Editor-In-Chief. Upon the thorough examination, the Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors should conclude if the case concerns a possibility of misconduct. All allegations should be kept confidential and references to the matter in writing should be kept anonymous, whenever possible.

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of either a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the Editors may impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a certain period of time. In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for their submission will be halted until completion of the aforementioned process. The investigation will be carried out even if the authors withdraw the manuscript, and implementation of the responses below will be considered.

When allegations concern reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process during the ongoing investigation of the matter. Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Retraction policies

Article retraction

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines followed by this Journal, an article can be retracted because of the following reasons:

  • Unreliable findings based on clear evidence of a misconduct (e.g. fraudulent use of the data) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • Redundant publication, e.g., findings that have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification.
  • Plagiarism or other kind of unethical research.

Retraction procedure

  • Retraction should happen after a careful consideration by the Journal editors of allegations coming from the editors, authors, or readers.
  • The HTML version of the retracted article is removed (except for the article metadata) and on its place a retraction note is issued.
  • The PDF of the retracted article is left on the website but clearly watermarked with the note "Retracted" on each page.
  • In some rare cases (e.g., for legal reasons or health risk) the retracted article can be replaced with a new corrected version containing apparent link to the retracted original version and a retraction note with a history of the document.

Expression of concern

In other cases, the Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern, if evidence is available for:

  • Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
  • Unreliable findings that are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
  • A belief that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
  • An investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Errata and Corrigenda

Pensoft journals largely follow the ICMJE guidelines for corrections and errata.

Errata

Admissible and insignificant errors in a published article that do not affect the article content or scientific integrity (e.g. typographic errors, broken links, wrong page numbers in the article headers etc.) can be corrected through publishing of an erratum. This happens through replacing the original PDF with the corrected one together with a correction notice on the Erratum Tab of the HTML version of the paper, detailing the errors and the changes implemented in the original PDF. The original PDF will be marked with a correction note and an indication to the corrected version of thFerratae article. The original PDF will also be archived and made accessible via a link in the same Erratum Tab.

Authors are also encouraged to post comments and indicate typographical errors on their articles to the Comments tab of the HTML version of the article.

Corrigenda

Corrigenda should be published in cases when significant errors are discovered in a published article. Usually, such errors affect the scientific integrity of the paper and could vary in scale. Reasons for publishing corrigenda may include changes in authorship, unintentional mistakes in published research findings and protocols, errors in labelling of tables and figures or others. In taxonomic journals, corrigenda are often needed in cases where the errors affect nomenclatural acts. Corrigenda are published as a separate publication and bear their own DOI. Examples of published corrigenda are available here.

The decision for issuing errata or corrigenda is with the editors after discussion with the authors.


Terms of Use

This document describes the Terms of Use of the services provided by the Russian Journal of Economics journal, hereinafter referred to as "the Journal" or "this Journal". All Users agree to these Terms of Use when signing up to this Journal. Signed Journal Users will be hereinafter referred to as "User" or "Users".

The publication services to the Journal are provided by Pensoft Publishers Ltd., through its publishing platform ARPHA, hereinafter referred to as "the Provider".

The Provider reserves the right to update the Terms of Use occasionally. Users will be notified via posting on the site and/or by email. If using the services of the Journal after such notice, the User will be deemed to have accepted the proposed modifications. If the User disagrees with the modifications, he/she should stop using the Journal services. Users are advised to periodically check the Terms of Use for updates or revisions. Violation of any of the terms will result in the termination of the User's account. The Provider is not responsible for any content posted by the User in the Journal.

Account Terms

  1. For registration in this Journal or any of the services or tools hosted on it, Users must provide their full legal name, a valid email address, postal address, affiliation (if any),  and any other information requested.
  2. Accounts created via this journal automatically sign in the User to the ARPHA Platform.
  3. Users are responsible for maintaining the security of their account and password. The Journal cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage from failure to comply with this security obligation.
  4. Users are solely responsible for the content posted via the Journal services (including, but not limited to data, text, files, information, usernames, images, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, sounds, applications, links and other content) and all activities that occur under their account.
  5. Users may not use the service for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. Users must not, in the use of the service, violate any laws within their jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws).
  6. Users can change or pseudonomyse their personal data, or deactivate their accounts at any time through the functionality available in the User’s personal profile. Deactivation or pseudonomysation will not affect the appearance of personal data in association with an already published work of which the User is author, co-author, editor, or reviewer.
  7. Users can report to the Journal uses of their personal data, that they might consider not corresponding to the current Terms of Use.
  8. The User’s personal data is processed by the Journal on the legal basis corresponding to Article 6, paragraph 1, letters a, b, c and f. of the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter referred to as GDPR) and will be used for the purpose of Journal’s services in accordance with the present Terms and Use, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  9. User’s consent to use the information the Journal has collected about the User corresponds to Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR.
  10. The ‘legitimate interest’ of the Journal to engage with the User and enable him/her to participate in Journal’s activities and use Journal’s services correspond to Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR.

Services and Prices

The Provider reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the services provided by the Journal. Plans and prices are subject to change upon 30 days notice from the Provider. Such notice may be provided at any time by posting the changes to the relevant service website.

Ownership

The Authors retain full ownership to their content published in the Journal. We claim no intellectual property rights over the material provided by any User in this Journal. However, by setting pages to be viewed publicly (Open Access), the User agrees to allow others to view and download the relevant content. In addition, Open Access articles might be used by the Provider, or any other third party, for data mining purposes.

The Provider reserves the rights in its sole discretion to refuse or remove any content that is available via the Website.

Copyrighted Materials

Unless stated otherwise, the Journal website may contain some copyrighted material (for example, logos and other proprietary information, including, without limitation, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound - "Copyrighted Material"). The User may not copy, modify, alter, publish, transmit, distribute, display, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works or, in any way, exploit any of the Copyrighted Material, in whole or in part, without written permission from the copyright owner. Users will be solely liable for any damage resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights or any other harm resulting from such a submission.

Exceptions from this rule are e-chapters or e-articles published under Open Access (see below), which are normally published under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Public Domain license (CC0).

Open Access Materials

This Journal is a supporter of open science. Open access to content is clearly marked, with text and/or the open access logo, on all materials published under this model. Unless otherwise stated, open access content is published in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (CC-BY). This particular licence allows the copying, displaying and distribution of the content at no charge, provided that the author and source are credited.

Privacy Statement

  1. Users agree to submit their personal data to this Journal, hosted on the ARPHA Platform provided by Pensoft.
  2. The Journal collects personal information from Users (e.g., name, postal and email addresses, affiliation) only for the purpose of its services.
  3. All personal data will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the website and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
  4. In the case of co-authorship of a work published through the Journal services, each of the co-authors states that they agree that their personal data be collected, stored and used by the Journal.
  5. In the case of co-authorship, each of the co-authors agrees that their personal data publicly available in the form of a co-authorship of a published work, can be distributed to external indexing services and aggregators for the purpose of the widest possible distribution of the work they co-author.
  6. When one of the co-authors is not registered in the Journal, it is presumed that the corresponding author who is registered has requested and obtained his/her consent that his/her personal data will be collected, stored and used by the Journal.
  7. The registered co-author undertakes to provide an e-mail address of the unregistered author, to whom the Journal will send a message in order to give the unregistered co-author’s explicit consent for the processing of his/her personal data by the Journal.
  8. The Journal is not responsible if the provided e-mail of the unregistered co-author is inaccurate or invalid. In such cases, it is assumed that the processing of the personal data of the unregistered co-author is done on a legal basis and with a given consent.
  9. The Journal undertakes to collect, store and use the provided personal data of third parties (including but not limited to unregistered co-authors) solely for the purposes of the website, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  10. Users can receive emails from Journal and its hosting platform ARPHA, provided by Pensoft, about activities they have given their consent for. Examples of such activities are:
    • Email notifications to authors, reviewers and editors who are engaged with authoring, reviewing or editing a manuscript submitted to the Journal.
    • Email alerts sent via email subscription service, which can happen only if the User has willingly subscribed for such a service. Unsubscription from the service can happen through a one-click link provided in each email alert notification.
    • Information emails on important changes in the system or in its Terms of Use which are sent via Mailchimp are provided with "Unsubscribe" function.
  11. Registered users can be invited to provide a peer review on manuscripts submitted to the Journal. In such cases, the users can decline the review invitation through a link available on the journal’s website.
  12. Each provided peer review can be registered with external services (such as Publons). The reviewer will be notified if such registration is going to occur and can decline the registration process.
  13. In case the Journal starts using personal data for purposes other than those specified in the Terms of Use, the Journal undertakes to immediately inform the person and request his/her consent.
  14. If the person does not give his/her consent to the processing of his or her personal data pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Journal shall cease the processing of the personal data for the purposes for which there is no consent, unless there is another legal basis for the processing.
  15. Users can change/correct their personal data anytime via the functionality available in the User’s profile. Users can request the Journal to correct their personal data if the data is inaccurate or outdated and the Journal is obliged to correct the inaccurate or outdated personal data in a timely manner.
  16. Users may request the Journal to restrict the use of their personal data insofar as this limitation is not contrary to the law or the Terms of Use.
  17. Users may request their personal data to be deleted (the right to be forgotten) by the Journal, provided that the deletion does not conflict with the law or the Terms of Use.
  18. The User has the right to be informed:
    • whether his or her personal data have been processed;
    • for which purposes the Journal processes the personal data;
    • the ways in which his/her personal data are processed;
    • the types of personal data that Journal processes.
  19. The user undertakes not to interfere with and impede the Journal’s activities in the exercise of the provided rights.
  20. In case of non-fulfillment under the previous paragraph, the Journal reserves the right to delete the user's profile.

Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability

Neither Pensoft and its affiliates nor any of their respective employees, agents, third party content providers or licensors warrant that the Journal service will be uninterrupted or error-free; nor do they give any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of the journal, or as to the accuracy or reliability of any information, service or merchandise provided through Journal.

Legal, medical, and health-related information located, identified or obtained through the use of the Service, is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for qualified advice from a professional.

In no event will the Provider, or any person or entity involved in creating, producing or distributing Journal or the contents included therein, be liable in contract, in tort (including for its own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability) for any damages, including, but without limitation to, direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages, including, but without limitation to, lost profits or revenues, loss of use or similar economic loss, arising from the use of or inability to use the journal platform. The User hereby acknowledges that the provisions of this section will apply to all use of the content on Journal. Applicable law may not allow the limitation or exclusion of liability or incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to the User. In no event will Pensoft’s total liability to the User for all damages, losses or causes of action, whether in contract, tort (including own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability), exceed the amount paid by the User, if any, for accessing Journal.

Third Party Content

The Provider is solely a distributor (and not a publisher) of SOME of the content supplied by third parties and Users of the Journal. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers and Users, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of the Provider.