Peer Review Policy and Review Process

Peer Review Policy
of the Electronic Scientific Journal “Management and Entrepreneurship: Trends of Development”

1. General Provisions
The Editorial Board of the electronic scientific professional journal “Management and Entrepreneurship: Development Trends” adheres to high ethical standards of academic publishing and ensures an objective, independent, and professional evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. The peer review process aims to guarantee the scientific quality and credibility of published research, to foster academic dialogue, and to promote the development of scholarly culture.

2. Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process is intended to evaluate:

  • the scientific novelty, relevance, and practical significance of the research;

  • the correspondence of the article’s content to the thematic scope of the journal;

  • the soundness of the methodology and validity of the conclusions;

  • adherence to academic integrity, scholarly style, and formatting requirements.

3. Type of Peer Review
The journal employs a double-blind peer review procedure, which ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. This system is designed to eliminate potential bias and prevent conflicts of interest, thereby maintaining impartiality and fairness in the evaluation process.

4. Review Procedure

  1. All articles are double-blind peer-reviewed - independently and in secret. Reviewers are representing the readers of the journal. 

    The period of preparation of the review by the reviewers - within 4 weeks from the receipt of the article.

    The primary expert review is conducted by the editor-in-chief of the journal. The editor-in-chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is original, has not been submitted anywhere else and does not contain plagiarism in all its forms (by the means of UNICHECK service). Otherwise the manuscript may be rejected on this step. After an initial technical screening and verification of compliance with journal requirements, the manuscript is assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area.

    The reviewers have to read the paper several times: firstly, to make the general impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may reject the manuscript on this step. If not, the reviewers will read the paper several more times to prepare a detailed review, according to the areas of evaluation:

    • relevance of the article
    • definition of the purpose and object of research
    • connection with existing research and concepts
    • conformity of the research methodology with the obtained results
    • novelty and originality of the received results
    • connection of conclusions with the results of research
    • structure, logical consistency and correct presentation of the material
    • presentation quality (tables, figures) language literacy, errors (specifying pages).

    The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or to reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

    The editor reserves the right to edit and reject the materials of manuscripts that are executed in violation of these requirements.

    After reviewing the manuscript may be:

    - accepted for publication;

    - returned to the author to make the appropriate adjustments;

    - rejected as not corresponding to the current requirements to professional editorials.

    The executive editor sends a final decision email to the corresponding author including the review form with reviewer's comments, maintaining anonymity of the reviewers. 

    If accepted, the manuscript is sent to publication in the Current Issue of the journal.

    2. Reviewers provide a written report with one of the following recommendations:

    - accept for publication without changes;

    - accept after minor revision;

    - revise and resubmit for further review;

    - reject the manuscript.

    3. In cases of significant disagreement between reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may appoint an additional reviewer.

    4. Revised manuscripts may undergo a repeated round of review.

5. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers are prohibited from disclosing, discussing, or using any data, arguments, or findings from the reviewed papers prior to their official publication.

6. Ethical Principles of Peer Review

  • Reviewers must provide objective, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback.

  • If plagiarism, data fabrication, or other violations of academic integrity are detected, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editorial Board.

  • Reviewers must decline to assess any manuscript in case of a potential conflict of interest with the author(s) or the research content.

7. Final Decision
The Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding publication based on reviewers’ recommendations and the overall scientific value of the manuscript. Authors receive an official notification of the review results and, if applicable, detailed comments for revision.

8. Publication Ethics and Quality Standards
The Editorial Board follows the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring transparency, academic integrity, and equal treatment of all authors regardless of their institutional or geographical affiliation. The journal is committed to maintaining high publication standards and promoting the dissemination of credible and ethically sound scientific knowledge.