We are in social networks:
Vkontakte Facebook Twitter

The procedure of reviewing

Each publication is evaluated by editor-in-chief and if the basic requirements are fulfilled the text is sent to review. Each publication is evaluated by at least two independent Reviewers. At least one of the Reviewers is affiliated in a foreign institution, which is different than the Author’s nationality. The double-blind review process is applied, where neither the Authors nor the Reviewers know each other’s identities.

Stages of article review:

1. The author sends the manuscript to the e-mail of the journal. At the beginning, the scientific secretary checks the structure, compliance with the requirements for submission, completeness of information of the article. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements for submission, the author is asked to submit a complete package of documents.

2. At the next stage, the manuscript is sent to the editor-in-chief, who determines the compliance of the article with the priority areas, ethical standards, checks for plagiarism and analyzes the quality of scientific research. Manuscripts that do not meet the subject and standards of the journal, as well as low scientific quality are rejected without submission for review. The author receives a message that his manuscript has been rejected.

3. A manuscript that meets all the requirements of the journal is submitted for review to two reviewers. The selection of reviewers for each article is determined by their level of expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience. The author receives a message that his manuscript has been submitted for review.

4. The reviewer undertakes to follow the publication ethics of the journal and provide a review. The decision to publish the submitted manuscript is made on the basis of expert opinions of reviewers and finally approved by the editorial board.

5. The article that has received two positive reviews is included in the publication plan of the journal with the status "accepted". The author receives a notification of acceptance of the publication for printing.

6. If both reviews are positive, but contain comments and comments of reviewers, the authors receive notification of approval for publication subject to revision and anonymous comments of reviewers. Authors should take into account the recommendations of reviewers and correct errors.

7. Authors should prepare a response letter with comments on improvements made after receiving the review.

8. If the article receives one positive and the other negative review, and the editorial board considers the results of the study significant, such an article is returned to the authors with comments for revision.

9. If the authors strongly disagree with the opinion of the reviewers and refuse to make changes to the text of the article, such an article receives the status of "rejected".

10. If an article receives two negative reviews, it is not accepted for publication. The author is notified that the article has been rejected without the right to resubmit.

11. All editorial changes are sent for approval and approval by the authors. The final version of the article agrees with the authors. After approval, the original article acquire the status of "to publication" and are included in the publication plan of the magazine "Neuro-Fuzzy Modeling Techniques in Economics".

The review is a written document, which ends with a definite conclusion whether the article should be published or rejected. The following evaluation criteria and procedures are applied:

A – very good article – accept.

The article is accepted for printing without sending back to the Author.

The Author receives a message about the positive review.

B – good article – accept when the Reviewer’s comments have been fulfilled

The article is sent back to the author to make changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author resends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the editors. The Editor-in-Chief makes a decision whether the article should be accepted for printing

C – acceptable after general reconstruction

The article is sent back to the Author to make general changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author sends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the Editors. The Editors send the article for another review. The Author may be committed to pay extra costs of the review of the corrected article.

D – negative – the article should not be published in journal

The article is not accepted for publication and cannot be resent to the Editors.