Standards of publishing ethics (recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)) abidance in our journal provided by all participants in the publication process (authors, editors and reviewers).

Ethical standards for authors

1. Reliability of the results of the study, objective assessment of its significance. The basic data presented in the work should not contain errors. In the paper must be presented operational and reference information in enough for reproduction volume. False or inaccurate information providing is unacceptable and is considered as unethical behavior.

2. Basic data access providing. Authors may be requested the data underlying the work, for review and evaluation by the editor. Authors are requested to keep this information within a reasonable period after publication of the paper.

3. Originality of the provided materials. Authors should guarantee the originality of their work and in the case of adduction of other people's statements or the results of the study will provide relevant links.

4. Exclusivity of the materials. Manuscript submitted to the editors should not be published more than one journal. Providing the same materials in two or more journals is evaluated as unethical and unacceptable.

5. Mandatory use of links. All borrowed materials in the manuscript should contain references to the authors. The authors are obliged to cite references to studies that determine the direction and nature of their work.

6. Inclusion in the authors of all persons who have made a significant contribution to the results of the study. Only persons who have made significant contribution to the manuscript preparation may be considered authors of the publication. Persons who have less contribution to the results of the study should be listed as co-authors.

7. Disclosure of information and conflict of interests’ prevention. All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any financial and/or other existing conflicts of interest which may be regarded as having affected the results or conclusions presented in the paper. Examples of potential conflicts of interest subject to disclosure include hired work, consultancy, shareholding, fees, the provision of expert opinions, patent applications or registrations, grants, or other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible.

8. Notification the editor of the fundamental mistakes in the work and facilitating their correction.

Ethical standards for the editor

1. Decision on the publication of provided materials is realized by the editor of the journal, guided by the policy of the editorial staff, legislative acts, issues of libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The basis of the decision of publication is the manuscript scientific contents and significance.

2. Impartiality. The editor is obliged to assess the manuscript content irrespective of ethnic, confessional, race, gender belonging, sexual orientation, origin, citizenship or political views.

3. Privacy ensuring. The editor and members of editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to third persons aside from the author, potential reviewers, editorial advisers and the publisher.

4. Ensuring of objective and competent reviewers, the practice of double-blind review.

5. Disclosure of information and conflict of interests’ prevention. The information contained in the unpublished manuscripts, should not be used in the editor works without the author's written consent.

Ethical standards for reviewers

1. Influence on editorial decisions. The reviewer assists in arriving at the adequate decision about manuscript publication.

2. Privacy ensuring. Any manuscript received for review must be considered as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with third persons without editor’s permission.

3. Standards of objectivity abidance. The review should be objective. Personal criticism of author is inadmissible. Reviewers should clearly express their opinion and present adequate reasoning.

4. Uncovering the important published works that correspond to the theme and not included in the manuscript bibliography. The reviewer should also pay the editor’s attention on the detected substantial similarity or coincidence between the consideration manuscript and any other published work.

5. Disclosure of information and conflict of interests’ prevention. Private information or ideas obtained through review process must not be disclosed or used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts whose contents are in conflict with their activities as a result of the competitive affiliate or any other relationships with at least one author, company or organization relevant to the manuscript.

6. Abidance to established by editorial staff regulatory review time.

Procedure of reviewing the materials that are presented to the journal
“Economics and Management: Research and Practice Journal” 

1. All scientific articles presented to the journal’s editorial board must be peer-reviewed. Having checked relevance of the article’s contents to the journal’s profile and submission procedure for scientific publications, it is directed to its review.

2. Within a week after the editorial office receives the article that does not correspond to the journal's profile and basic requirements for publication, it is returned to the author with the reasons for return.

3. An article corresponding to the profile of the journal and the basic requirements for scientific publications, within 7 days after receipt by the editorial board, is sent for review to an independent expert with a degree in the field in which the article was made. The maximum review period is 1 week.

4. When reviewing the manuscript received by the editorial board, the external reviewers and editor rely on the following criteria: a) the relevance of topics covered in the article from the point of view of solving scientific problems related to the issues and the profile of the journal; b) theoretical originality, the development of new academic material and analytical approach; c) the theoretical justification for the chosen topic; d) the validity of data; f) the presence of solid, date supported conclusions.

5. A copy of the review (or reasoned refusal) is sent back to the article’s authors with an offer for polishing the article according to the expert’s notes or providing arguments for their refusal. Time for polishing the article is 2 weeks.

6. The articles the authors of which do not mind the expert’s notes are not accepted for publication. If the author does not agree with the expert’s notes, he may provide a reasoned appeal which is considered by the editorial board and in controversial issues the article may be reviewed for the second time.

7. The editorial board sends the reviews’ copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if it is required.

8. Reviews of the articles published in the issue “Economics and Management: Research and Practice Journal” are retained in the archives within 3 years.