The Moscow Economic Journal publishes articles corresponding to the profile of the journal and its headings. The article must be original, not previously published anywhere, and not infringing on the copyrights of third parties.

The author's material presented in the article should have elements of scientific novelty, have an applied orientation, disclose theoretical, methodological and practical issues of solving any relevant problem, contain conclusions and recommendations.

The text of the article may be accompanied by illustrative materials (tables, diagrams, graphs, diagrams, etc.).

Metadata

It is necessary to specify the UDC of the article.

All metadata is provided in Russian and English. Transliteration is not allowed — translation is required. This applies to the title, annotation, keywords and information about the authors.

The information about the author must include the full name, place of work, academic degree, academic title, position, place of work, city and country. If available, specify the SPIN code and ORCID. 

The title of the article is typed in capital letters. The name should be informative and specific, and should not contain verbs. 

The abstract should have the same structure as the article and include the relevance of the problem; purpose; methods; results; conclusions. The abstract should consist of 200-250 words.

Keywords - from 5 to 10 words or phrases. It is unacceptable to type in capital letters. Keywords are separated by commas, they are not closed with a dot.

List of literature. The recommended number of links is 10-20. The cited articles should be relatively fresh, relevant and easily accessible. It is desirable that the documents are available via the Internet. 

In the text of the article, references to the list of references are given in square brackets.

The list of references must be drawn up in accordance with GOST 7.0.5-2008.

The sources in the list are arranged in alphabetical order. First, the sources are in Russian, then in foreign languages.

The bibliographic list may include the following types of sources:

• monograph
• article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
• article in the collection of materials (proceedings) of a scientific and practical conference
• other sources (Internet sites, newspapers, regulatory documents, reference legal systems, articles without attribution) should be made out in the form of page-by-page footnotes or, as far as possible and legibility, mentioned directly in the text.

For materials from the list of references, it is necessary to specify the DOI, if available. We attach a link to an article that describes why you need to do this and how easy it is to find a DOI: to read.

Acknowledgements / Funding. Personal thanks, as well as information about financing, should be given before the text in Russian.

Illustrations

Illustrative materials (drawings, drawings, graphs, diagrams, diagrams) are made using graphic electronic editors. These materials must be numbered end-to-end and accompanied by an English translation. The volume of the submitted illustrative materials should not exceed A4 format. 

The digital data is formatted in a table. Tables should not be bulky (no more than A4 format, portrait orientation). Abbreviations of words in tables are not allowed except for units of measurement.

Text

It must be typed in a text editor without automatic hyphenation.

Articles in .pdf format are not accepted.

The structure of the article

The article should be written in accordance with the logic of IMRAD (introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion) and contain the following parts: introduction, methods, results and conclusions. 

Introduction. This part should include the objectives of the work and its background. The introduction is based on a literature review. It is necessary to show competence in your field and its main authors and works. Only links that are strictly related to your topic are provided. The recommended number of links is 5-10.

Methods. This part should contain detailed information about the experimental setup and the methods used to obtain the results.

Results. This part should clearly and concisely present the data using figures and tables, where appropriate.

Conclusions. In this part, the relationships and generalizations shown by the results should be described and the significance of the results discussed, comparing them with previously published works.

The author of the article is responsible for the accuracy of this information. Articles sent to the editorial office without fulfilling the requirements of these publication conditions are not accepted.

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing, namely: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the scientific community for Moscow economic journal.

1.2. Publisher supports the scientific communications and invests in the given process but also bears its responsible for observance of all present-day recommendations in the paper to be published.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision

The Editor ofMoscow economic journal scientific Journal is solely and independently responsible for decision for publication, often in conjunction with the relevant scientific community. The validation of the work in question and its scientific importance must always be in the basis of the decision on publication. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of theMoscow economic journal and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or community officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Decency

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor and Editorial board ofMoscow economic journal  must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. 

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest:

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5.Vigilance over published record

An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the authors of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor ofMoscow economic journal and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards:

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism:

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.7. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of Moscow economic journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The Publisher should observe the principles and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Moscow economic journal in accordance with the given requirements.

5.2. The Publisher should support the editors Moscow economic journal in considering any complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

The process of reviewing a scientific article

1. Initial examination of the manuscript for compliance with the requirements of the journal

It is performed by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor), within 3-5 days from the date of receipt of the article to the editorial office. The initial examination of the manuscript evaluates the compliance of the article with the scientific topic of the journal and the rules for the design of manuscripts for the authors of the journal based on the information provided in the section "Requirements for articles".

Manuscripts whose design does not comply with the rules for the authors of the journal are rejected and not considered. The re-submission of the manuscript is possible after bringing it into compliance with the requirements of the journal.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked using the Anti-Plagiarism system for the presence of borrowings. The percentage of the original text cannot be less than 75%. In case of detection of incorrect and/or unformulated borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts corresponding to the subject of the journal, designed in accordance with the "Requirements for articles" and not containing incorrect and/or unformulated borrowings, are accepted for consideration.

2. Organization of the manuscript review procedure

All manuscripts accepted for review undergo a double "blind" review, which assumes that reviewers do not receive information about the author(s) of the manuscript, and the author is not notified about who is reviewing his manuscript, receiving the reviewers' opinion from the editorial board of the journal.

The author of the manuscript receives electronic messages signed by the editorial board of the journal or the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor).

3. The procedure for reviewing the manuscript

3.1. The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts on the subject of the reviewed material who have published in this field over the past three years. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor). When choosing a reviewer, the editorial board takes into account potential conflicts of interest: for example, a scientific supervisor (scientific consultant), a subordinate or employer of the author, a co-author of previous articles, a close relative of the author of the manuscript cannot become a reviewer.

3.2. The review of articles is carried out on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The editorial board of the journal uses the standard form when reviewing articles.

3.3. Each article is sent to two reviewers. The review period is three weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended for another two weeks. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review in case of a possible conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

3.4. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• to accept for publication in the presented form;

• accept for publication after minor revision and re-review;

• accept for publication after significant revision and re-review;

• reject it.

3.5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the reviewer's comments to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-sent for review. The revision of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes.

3.6. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after four weeks from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors refusing to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate e-mail message is sent to the authors about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

3.7. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor) has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the decision of the editor-in-chief, taking into account the reviews received. An article that is not recommended for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate electronic message about the refusal to publish.

3.9. After receiving a positive reviewer's opinion and acceptance of the manuscript for publication, the article is placed in the editorial portfolio for final preparation for publication. The authors are sent an appropriate e-mail about the acceptance of the manuscript with an indication of the date of publication. The editorial board has the right to agree with the author on the final version of the manuscript.

3.10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.11. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years.

3.12. The editorial board of the journal undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

We publish articles in full open access under a Creative Commons license (CC BY). This allows the scientific community and the general public to have unlimited, free access to scientific articles.

Full Open Access (Gold Open Access) is a globally recognized principle of publishing research results, according to which the reader is exempt from any restrictions on online access to the full text of the publication, as well as from a number of restrictions on its use. Payment for open access of future readers to published author's articles is the responsibility of the Author.

To cover the costs of full open access publishing services, authors or organizations pay for the processing of an article accepted for publication.

We do not charge any fees for rejected articles or for submitting an application for publication. The payment does not depend on the number of co-authors.

Many funding organizations (grant-givers) explicitly allow the use of research grants to pay for the processing of articles for publication in open access journals.

The payment covers the provision of online tools for editors and authors, editorial and publishing preparation and hosting of publications, data exchange with scientometric and bibliographic services, checking for text borrowings and indexing, as well as technical support and customer service.

Payment for the processing of the article is made after receiving notification by the Author of the acceptance of the article for publication on the basis of an agreement, which you will receive after approval of your article for publication in your personal account on the publisher's website. You should print out the contract, sign it personally and with the co-authors (if any), send the contract to the editorial office and pay the costs of processing the article in the amount specified in the contract.

The Article Processing Charge is 12,500 rubles.

The average time for reviewing an application for publication is 27 days. All publications are assigned a DOI identifier with the transfer of an expanded amount of metadata to the Crossref agency. Metadata about the publication is transmitted to the RSCI after the issue is formed.

The authors who publish articles in the journal agree with the following:

1. The authors retain the copyright to the work and grant the journal the right to publish the work for the first time on the basis of the accepted Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows others to distribute this work with mandatory preservation of links to the authors of the original work and the original publication in this journal.

2. The authors retain the right to enter into separate contractual agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published here (for example, placing it in the institute's repository, publishing it in a book), with reference to its original publication in this journal.

«Moscow economic journal» revives the traditions of the capital's journals of the 18th and 19th centuries in Russia, "Proceedings of the Free Economic Society" and "Russian Economic Review", presenting an opportunity to reflect the different points of view of scientists, teachers, graduate students, economists, politicians, entrepreneurs on a wide range of issues in various sectors of the economy and management in the country and in the world.

The Moscow Economic Journal publishes articles corresponding to the profile of the journal and its headings. The article must be original, not previously published anywhere, and not infringing on the copyrights of third parties.

The author's material presented in the article should have elements of scientific novelty, have an applied orientation, disclose theoretical, methodological and practical issues of solving any relevant problem, contain conclusions and recommendations.

The text of the article may be accompanied by illustrative materials (tables, diagrams, graphs, diagrams, etc.).

Metadata

It is necessary to specify the UDC of the article.

All metadata is provided in Russian and English. Transliteration is not allowed — translation is required. This applies to the title, annotation, keywords and information about the authors.

The information about the author must include the full name, place of work, academic degree, academic title, position, place of work, city and country. If available, specify the SPIN code and ORCID. 

The title of the article is typed in capital letters. The name should be informative and specific, and should not contain verbs. 

The abstract should have the same structure as the article and include the relevance of the problem; purpose; methods; results; conclusions. The abstract should consist of 200-250 words.

Keywords - from 5 to 10 words or phrases. It is unacceptable to type in capital letters. Keywords are separated by commas, they are not closed with a dot.

List of literature. The recommended number of links is 10-20. The cited articles should be relatively fresh, relevant and easily accessible. It is desirable that the documents are available via the Internet. 

In the text of the article, references to the list of references are given in square brackets.

The list of references must be drawn up in accordance with GOST 7.0.5-2008.

The sources in the list are arranged in alphabetical order. First, the sources are in Russian, then in foreign languages.

The bibliographic list may include the following types of sources:

• monograph
• article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
• article in the collection of materials (proceedings) of a scientific and practical conference
• other sources (Internet sites, newspapers, regulatory documents, reference legal systems, articles without attribution) should be made out in the form of page-by-page footnotes or, as far as possible and legibility, mentioned directly in the text.

For materials from the list of references, it is necessary to specify the DOI, if available. We attach a link to an article that describes why you need to do this and how easy it is to find a DOI: to read.

Acknowledgements / Funding. Personal thanks, as well as information about financing, should be given before the text in Russian.

Illustrations

Illustrative materials (drawings, drawings, graphs, diagrams, diagrams) are made using graphic electronic editors. These materials must be numbered end-to-end and accompanied by an English translation. The volume of the submitted illustrative materials should not exceed A4 format. 

The digital data is formatted in a table. Tables should not be bulky (no more than A4 format, portrait orientation). Abbreviations of words in tables are not allowed except for units of measurement.

Text

It must be typed in a text editor without automatic hyphenation.

Articles in .pdf format are not accepted.

The structure of the article

The article should be written in accordance with the logic of IMRAD (introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion) and contain the following parts: introduction, methods, results and conclusions. 

Introduction. This part should include the objectives of the work and its background. The introduction is based on a literature review. It is necessary to show competence in your field and its main authors and works. Only links that are strictly related to your topic are provided. The recommended number of links is 5-10.

Methods. This part should contain detailed information about the experimental setup and the methods used to obtain the results.

Results. This part should clearly and concisely present the data using figures and tables, where appropriate.

Conclusions. In this part, the relationships and generalizations shown by the results should be described and the significance of the results discussed, comparing them with previously published works.

The author of the article is responsible for the accuracy of this information. Articles sent to the editorial office without fulfilling the requirements of these publication conditions are not accepted.

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing, namely: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the scientific community for Moscow economic journal.

1.2. Publisher supports the scientific communications and invests in the given process but also bears its responsible for observance of all present-day recommendations in the paper to be published.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision

The Editor ofMoscow economic journal scientific Journal is solely and independently responsible for decision for publication, often in conjunction with the relevant scientific community. The validation of the work in question and its scientific importance must always be in the basis of the decision on publication. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of theMoscow economic journal and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or community officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Decency

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor and Editorial board ofMoscow economic journal  must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. 

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest:

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5.Vigilance over published record

An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the authors of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor ofMoscow economic journal and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards:

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism:

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.7. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of Moscow economic journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The Publisher should observe the principles and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Moscow economic journal in accordance with the given requirements.

5.2. The Publisher should support the editors Moscow economic journal in considering any complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

The process of reviewing a scientific article

1. Initial examination of the manuscript for compliance with the requirements of the journal

It is performed by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor), within 3-5 days from the date of receipt of the article to the editorial office. The initial examination of the manuscript evaluates the compliance of the article with the scientific topic of the journal and the rules for the design of manuscripts for the authors of the journal based on the information provided in the section "Requirements for articles".

Manuscripts whose design does not comply with the rules for the authors of the journal are rejected and not considered. The re-submission of the manuscript is possible after bringing it into compliance with the requirements of the journal.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked using the Anti-Plagiarism system for the presence of borrowings. The percentage of the original text cannot be less than 75%. In case of detection of incorrect and/or unformulated borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts corresponding to the subject of the journal, designed in accordance with the "Requirements for articles" and not containing incorrect and/or unformulated borrowings, are accepted for consideration.

2. Organization of the manuscript review procedure

All manuscripts accepted for review undergo a double "blind" review, which assumes that reviewers do not receive information about the author(s) of the manuscript, and the author is not notified about who is reviewing his manuscript, receiving the reviewers' opinion from the editorial board of the journal.

The author of the manuscript receives electronic messages signed by the editorial board of the journal or the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor).

3. The procedure for reviewing the manuscript

3.1. The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts on the subject of the reviewed material who have published in this field over the past three years. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor). When choosing a reviewer, the editorial board takes into account potential conflicts of interest: for example, a scientific supervisor (scientific consultant), a subordinate or employer of the author, a co-author of previous articles, a close relative of the author of the manuscript cannot become a reviewer.

3.2. The review of articles is carried out on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The editorial board of the journal uses the standard form when reviewing articles.

3.3. Each article is sent to two reviewers. The review period is three weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended for another two weeks. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review in case of a possible conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

3.4. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• to accept for publication in the presented form;

• accept for publication after minor revision and re-review;

• accept for publication after significant revision and re-review;

• reject it.

3.5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the reviewer's comments to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-sent for review. The revision of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes.

3.6. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after four weeks from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors refusing to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate e-mail message is sent to the authors about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

3.7. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor) has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the decision of the editor-in-chief, taking into account the reviews received. An article that is not recommended for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate electronic message about the refusal to publish.

3.9. After receiving a positive reviewer's opinion and acceptance of the manuscript for publication, the article is placed in the editorial portfolio for final preparation for publication. The authors are sent an appropriate e-mail about the acceptance of the manuscript with an indication of the date of publication. The editorial board has the right to agree with the author on the final version of the manuscript.

3.10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.11. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years.

3.12. The editorial board of the journal undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

We publish articles in full open access under a Creative Commons license (CC BY). This allows the scientific community and the general public to have unlimited, free access to scientific articles.

Full Open Access (Gold Open Access) is a globally recognized principle of publishing research results, according to which the reader is exempt from any restrictions on online access to the full text of the publication, as well as from a number of restrictions on its use. Payment for open access of future readers to published author's articles is the responsibility of the Author.

To cover the costs of full open access publishing services, authors or organizations pay for the processing of an article accepted for publication.

We do not charge any fees for rejected articles or for submitting an application for publication. The payment does not depend on the number of co-authors.

Many funding organizations (grant-givers) explicitly allow the use of research grants to pay for the processing of articles for publication in open access journals.

The payment covers the provision of online tools for editors and authors, editorial and publishing preparation and hosting of publications, data exchange with scientometric and bibliographic services, checking for text borrowings and indexing, as well as technical support and customer service.

Payment for the processing of the article is made after receiving notification by the Author of the acceptance of the article for publication on the basis of an agreement, which you will receive after approval of your article for publication in your personal account on the publisher's website. You should print out the contract, sign it personally and with the co-authors (if any), send the contract to the editorial office and pay the costs of processing the article in the amount specified in the contract.

The Article Processing Charge is 12,500 rubles.

The average time for reviewing an application for publication is 27 days. All publications are assigned a DOI identifier with the transfer of an expanded amount of metadata to the Crossref agency. Metadata about the publication is transmitted to the RSCI after the issue is formed.

The authors who publish articles in the journal agree with the following:

1. The authors retain the copyright to the work and grant the journal the right to publish the work for the first time on the basis of the accepted Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows others to distribute this work with mandatory preservation of links to the authors of the original work and the original publication in this journal.

2. The authors retain the right to enter into separate contractual agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published here (for example, placing it in the institute's repository, publishing it in a book), with reference to its original publication in this journal.

Shchapov Alexander MIREA - Russian University of Technology

Scherba Valentina Omsk State Agrarian University (Department of Land Management, Associate Professor)
candidate of agricultural sciences

Shcherbakova Natalia Penza State University (Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, Associate Professor)
candidate of pedagogical sciences

docent

Shcherban Elena Yuri Gagarin Saratov State Technical University (Department «Sectoral management and economic security», Associate professor)
candidate of economic sciences

docent

Scherbik Evgeniy Efimovich Nizhnevartovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet

Scherbina A. V. Yuzhnyy federal'nyy universitet

Scherbina Aleksey Vladimirovich Yuzhnyy federal'nyy universitet

Schipanova Anastasiya Nikolaevna Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Department of Economic Security)

Eydel'man B. M. Kazanskiy (Privolzhskiy) federal'nyy universitet

Eyfari Abdel' Kadem Zahra Rossiyskiy universitet druzhby narodov

El'dieva Tat'yana Novgorodskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet imeni Yaroslava Mudrogo

El'mesov Al'bi Muradinovich Kabardino-Balkarskiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet im. V.M. Kokova

Emirova Guri Abduragimovna Dagestanskiy gosudarstvennyy tehnicheskiy universitet

Emirova Guri Abduragimovna Dagestanskiy gosudarstvennyy tehnicheskiy universitet

Eredzhepova Rimma Kurbanalievna Stavropol'skiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet

Yudin Andrey A.V. Zhuravsky Institute of Agrobiotechnology – a separate division of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution FIT Komi NC Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Director)
candidate of economic sciences

Yudina Ekaterina Sergeevna Penzenskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet

Yudicheva Aleksandra Vasil'evna Institut ekonomiki, finansov i biznesa Bashkirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta

Yu Jiang Lomonosov Moscow State University (Faculty of Economics)

Yuldashev Nuritdin Kurbanovich Tashkentskiy gosudarstvennyy ekonomicheskiy universitet

• « 
• 1
• …
• 123
• 124
• 125
• 126
• 127
•  »