RULES FOR REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

1. These rules are developed in accordance with the Requirements for the articles submitted for publication in the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics, approved by the Academic Council of the University (Protocol No. 7 dated April 25, 2016)

2. The editor of the periodical scientific journals of the University notifies the authors about the receipt of the article within 2-3 working days by e-mail or in person by phone. Articles are submitted in electronic form together with the accompanying documents specified in the Requirements for the articles submitted for publication in the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics.

3. All manuscripts sent to the editorial office are checked for text borrowings using the program "Anti-Plagiarism" and a two-level review system (external and internal review).

4. Manuscripts that do not meet the specification of the scientific publication and the Requirements for the articles submitted for publication in the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, as notified by the executive secretary of the scientific publication.

5. The executive secretary of the scientific publication sends the registered manuscripts to a specific reviewer (reviewers) with the degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences in accordance with the specification of the submitted article. Reviewers are appointed by the Chief Editor of the scientific publication or, on his or her behalf, by the Deputy Chief Editor.

6. External reviewers are leading scientists from other institutions of higher education, research institutions of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and branch academies of sciences involved on a voluntary basis. Internal review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the scientific publication and, on behalf of the Chief Editor, employees of the University with the degree of Doctor or Candidate of science, who work at departments and teach in specialities.

7. In case of disputes (if the author (s) does/do not agree with the comments), it is possible to involve additional reviewers (both external and internal). In this case, in agreement with the Chief Editor, the article is sent by the executive secretary of the scientific publication for review to another reviewer.

8. Subject to compliance with the Requirements for the articles submitted for publication in the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics, the articles of the following authors are published without review:
- academicians and corresponding members of NAS of Ukraine;
- academicians of branch academies of sciences of Ukraine;
- doctors of sciences, professors (for individual articles).

9. Reviewing articles is confidential. The reviewers’ names are not disclosed.

10. The external review is certified (by the signature of the reviewer, seal of the institution) in the manner prescribed by the institution where the reviewer works.

11. Before publication, the manuscripts of the articles are subject to additional review by the members of the editorial board.

12. A review of a scientific article should contain:
- general characteristics of the article (title, author (s), volume)
- general characteristics of the article's range of problems;
- compliance of the range of problems with the specialization of the scientific publication;
- justification of the relevance of the article;
- compliance of the content of the article with the topic stated in the title;
- assessment of the novelty of the study;
- expediency of publishing the article taking into account previously published research results of the other authors;
- justification of the exact positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, corrections and additions that should be made by the author(s) (if any);
- remarks on the presentation and design of the text of the article (including the possibility of reducing the volume of the article without compromising the understanding of the presented scientific provisions and results);
- objective and fundamental comments of the reviewer, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the article.

13. The final part of the review should contain a reasoned opinion on the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in one of the following terms:
- recommended to accept the article for publication in the scientific journal "...";
- recommended to accept the article for publication in the scientific journal "..." with technical amendments;
- recommended to accept the article for publication in the scientific journal "..." after the author(s) has/have amended the article according to the reviewer's comments, with a subsequent referral for re-review to the same reviewer;
- recommend to refuse to publish the article in the scientific journal "..." because of its non-compliance with the requirements for the scientific level of the publication, indicating specific amendments.

14.  The terms of reviewing are determined by the executive secretary taking into account the planned terms of publication of the scientific journal, but not more than three weeks.

15. In case of refusal to publish the article, the executive secretary sends a reasoned letter to the author(s). Articles are not allowed to be published for the following reasons:
- non-compliance of the specialization of the scientific journal with the approved requirements for publications;
- the absence of the amended version of the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer (or a reasoned refutation of the comments);
- low quality of the scientific article (violation of the structure of the article, lack of a clear purpose of the study, analysis of publications of other authors on relevant topics, statistical analysis of experimental research, insufficient validity of conclusions, re-publication of research results);
- violation of someone's copyright or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics.

16. When receiving a negative review, the executive secretary of the editorial board sends a proposal to the author(s) to revise the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or to refute them in a timely manner.

17. The author(s) must return the revised version of the article to the editors within the earlier of 2 weeks after receiving the comments. In case of non-return of the article to the editors by the author(s) after the expiration of the specified period or the need for more than two revisions, the original date of its registration is cancelled and the date of receipt is the day of receipt of the final version.

18. In case of a positive review, the article is submitted to the Chief Editor (or Deputy Chief Editor) for approval for publication in the next issue of the scientific journal. If necessary, the decision on the expediency of publication after review is made by the editorial board as a whole.

19. The article approved for publication is sent to the editor of periodicals. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made in the article by this editor without the consent of the author(s). If necessary, the edited manuscripts are returned to the author(s) for approval.

20. The order of publication is established by the date of approval by the Chief Editor, Deputy Chief Editor or the Editorial Board.

21. Reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, as well as editorial staff are not allowed to use the content of the article before its publication in their own interests. The article is the intellectual property of the author(s) and is not subject to disclosure until publication.

22. Articles accepted for publication or rejected shall be kept (together with reviews) in the editorial archive for five calendar years.