General provisions

Peer review of manuscripts submitted to Ekonomika APK is conducted to ensure an appropriate scholarly standard of publication, uphold the principles of academic integrity, and select relevant, original, and methodologically sound research.

The main objectives of peer review are:

• to provide an objective assessment of the scholarly quality of the manuscript;
• to verify the relevance, originality, and reliability of the findings;
• to assess whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope;
• to determine the theoretical and practical value of the research;
• to verify compliance with scholarly, editorial, and ethical standards;
• to provide authors with constructive recommendations for improving the manuscript.

All participants in the editorial process must act impartially, maintain confidentiality, and comply with the journal’s policies on publication ethics, academic integrity, and conflict of interest.

Peer review model

The journal operates a double-anonymised peer review process, under which:

• reviewers are not informed of the authors’ names, institutional affiliations, or other personal details;
• authors are not provided with any information that would enable them to identify the reviewers.

Original research articles and review articles undergo independent external peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field.

Editorial materials, information notices, and other materials that do not present the results of original research, where such materials are published by the journal, undergo editorial assessment but may not be sent for external peer review. The type of assessment applied to each category of material is determined by the editorial team according to its content and purpose.

Initial editorial assessment

Following submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript. At this stage, the following aspects are evaluated:

• compliance with the journal’s scope, aims, and scholarly profile;
• compliance with the requirements concerning the structure and formatting of the article;
• the inclusion of all required information and supporting documents;
• compliance with the principles of academic integrity and publication ethics;
• the originality of the text and the presence of any indications of unattributed borrowing, duplication, or multiple submission;
• the overall scholarly standard, methodological validity, and completeness of the research.

The initial assessment is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or a designated academic editor. A manuscript may be rejected without being sent for external peer review if it:

• falls outside the journal’s scope;
• does not demonstrate sufficient scholarly novelty;
• contains evident methodological or structural deficiencies;
• does not comply with the journal’s formatting requirements;
• shows indications of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or another breach of academic integrity;
• does not comply with the ethical requirements governing the conduct and reporting of research.

Rejection of a manuscript at the initial assessment stage does not constitute an external expert decision and does not require the provision of peer-review reports.

Where a manuscript meets the journal’s principal requirements, it is assigned a registration code. Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, any information that could reveal the authors’ identities is removed from the text, metadata, and file properties.

Reviewer selection

External peer review is organised by an academic editor or a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant area of research.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• their scholarly specialisation;
• their research experience in the subject area of the manuscript;
• their relevant scholarly publications;
• their ability to conduct an independent and objective assessment;
• the absence of any conflict of interest involving the authors, editors, or institutions associated with the research.

Ukrainian and international researchers who possess the appropriate academic qualifications and professional expertise in the relevant field may be invited to act as reviewers.

A reviewer must not:

• be employed by the same institution as the author of the manuscript;
• have current or recent joint research projects or publications with the author;
• have a supervisory, advisory, or subordinate relationship with the author;
• have any personal, professional, academic, financial, or other interest that could affect the objectivity of the assessment.

An invited reviewer must inform the editorial team of any potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation where they cannot guarantee an independent and impartial assessment.

Confidentiality

The manuscript, peer-review report, and correspondence related to the expert assessment are confidential materials.

Reviewers must not:

• disclose the manuscript or any part of it to third parties;
• discuss the content of the research with individuals who are not involved in the editorial process;
• use unpublished data, methods, ideas, or findings for their own benefit;
• attempt to identify the authors;
• involve other individuals in preparing the review without prior approval from the editorial team.

Where a reviewer requires consultation with another specialist, such consultation is permitted only with the prior approval of the editorial team. Any person involved in such consultation must also comply with the confidentiality requirements and disclose any potential conflict of interest.

Manuscript assessment criteria

During the peer-review process, reviewers assess:

• whether the content of the article is consistent with its title, abstract, and stated aim;
• the relevance of the scholarly problem addressed;
• the originality and scholarly novelty of the research;
• the completeness of the analysis of previous studies;
• the validity of the research aim, objectives, or hypotheses;
• the appropriateness of the methodology in relation to the stated aim;
• the sufficiency and reliability of the data used;
• the appropriateness of the analytical methods and statistical processing of the findings;
• the logical organisation of the manuscript and the strength of its arguments;
• whether the conclusions are supported by the findings;
• the theoretical and practical value of the research;
• the quality of tables, figures, equations, and other illustrative materials;
• the accuracy of citations and the relevance of the sources used;
• compliance with the ethical principles governing the conduct and reporting of research;
• the potential interest of the article to the journal’s target readership.

Reviewers’ comments must be specific, substantiated, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Insulting, discriminatory, or unsubstantiated assessments of the author or their work are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewers’ own publications or other sources unless those references are directly relevant to the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Peer-review outcomes

The reviewer completes the peer-review form adopted by the journal, provides substantiated comments, and selects one of the following recommendations:

1. accept the article for publication without changes;
2. accept the article following minor revisions;
3. return the article for major revision and further peer review;
4. reject the article.

A recommendation to revise or reject a manuscript must be accompanied by a clear written justification. The final editorial decision does not necessarily correspond exactly to the recommendation of an individual reviewer, as the editorial team considers the peer-review reports as a whole, the validity of the reviewers’ comments, the authors’ responses, and the journal’s editorial policy.

Where the reviewers’ conclusions differ substantially, the editor may:

• request an additional peer-review report;
• ask the reviewers to clarify their comments;
• independently assess the validity of the reviewers’ conclusions;
• transfer the manuscript to another editor responsible for the relevant area of research.

Manuscript revision

The author is sent the editorial decision and anonymised copies of the peer-review reports. Reviewers’ names, contact details, and other identifying information are not disclosed to the authors.

When submitting a revised version, the author must:

• make the necessary changes to the manuscript;
• provide a separate response to each of the reviewers’ comments;
• clearly indicate the changes made;
• provide a reasoned explanation where a particular recommendation has not been followed.

The revised manuscript may be sent to the same reviewers or to different reviewers for further assessment. Reviewers may recommend additional revisions where their previous comments have not been fully addressed or where new substantial issues are identified in the revised version.

A request to revise a manuscript does not constitute automatic acceptance for publication. The article may be rejected where the revisions fail to address fundamental scholarly, methodological, or ethical deficiencies.

Final editorial decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor authorised by the Editor-in-Chief. The decision takes into account:

• the conclusions of the independent reviewers;
• the validity of their comments;
• the authors’ responses;
• the quality of the revised manuscript;
• the article’s compliance with the journal’s scope and editorial requirements;
• compliance with the principles of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality of the material and are not influenced by the author’s citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views, position, academic degree, or institutional affiliation.

The editorial team reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage where a breach of academic integrity, publication ethics, or the journal’s requirements is identified.

Conflict of interest involving the Editor-in-Chief and other editors

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, academic editor, or any other member of the Editorial Board must not participate in the initial assessment, selection of reviewers, discussion of the manuscript, or editorial decision-making where an actual, potential, or apparent conflict of interest exists.

A conflict of interest may arise, in particular, where an editor:

• is the author or co-author of the submitted manuscript;
• has family, personal, professional, academic, or financial ties with one or more of the authors;
• is employed by the same institution as the authors or has recently collaborated with them;
• is or has been the author’s academic supervisor, adviser, subordinate, or direct colleague;
• has co-authored scholarly publications, participated in research projects or grants, or has other shared professional interests with the authors;
• is associated with a product, service, institution, organisation, or project examined in the manuscript;
• has a personal or professional interest in the acceptance or rejection of the article;
• is subject to any other circumstances that could call their impartiality into question.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, they must withdraw completely from all work relating to the manuscript and must not have access to the reviewer selection process, the content of the peer-review reports, editorial discussions, or the final decision.

In such cases, responsibility for organising the peer-review process and making the final decision is transferred to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, provided that the Deputy Editor-in-Chief has no conflict of interest. Where the Deputy Editor-in-Chief also has a conflict of interest, the manuscript is transferred to an independent member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor who has the relevant scholarly expertise and has no connection with the authors or the subject of the research.

The decision to appoint an independent editor is made by the Editorial Board without the participation of individuals who have a conflict of interest. The appointed editor is granted full authority to:

• conduct the initial assessment of the manuscript;
• select independent external reviewers;
• ensure compliance with the double-anonymised peer-review procedure;
• assess the peer-review reports and the authors’ responses;
• return the manuscript for revision or additional peer review;
• make the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Articles authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, editorial staff, or persons associated with them are considered under the same independent external peer-review procedure as all other manuscripts. Such individuals must not influence the selection of reviewers, the assessment process, or the final editorial decision.

Information concerning an editor’s withdrawal due to a conflict of interest and the transfer of their responsibilities to another independent individual is documented and retained by the editorial team together with the other peer-review materials.

Peer-review timeframes

The standard period for completing an external peer-review report is between two and four weeks from the date on which the reviewer accepts the invitation.

The average period from manuscript submission to the first editorial decision is between four and eight weeks. The actual duration of the assessment may depend on the subject of the article, the availability of appropriate experts, the need for additional peer review, and the extent of the required revisions.

The editorial team endeavours to ensure the timely consideration of manuscripts but does not shorten the peer-review process at the expense of the quality or objectivity of the expert assessment.

Retention of peer-review materials

Peer-review reports, editorial decisions, authors’ responses, and other materials related to manuscript assessment are retained by the editorial team in electronic or paper form for at least three years from the date of publication of the article or the date of the final decision concerning the manuscript.

Access to these materials is restricted to authorised representatives of the editorial team. Information concerning the identity of a reviewer is not disclosed, except where disclosure is required by law or is necessary for the investigation of a substantiated breach of publication ethics.