RULES FOR REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO THE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
OF LVIV UNIVERSITY OF TRADE AND ECONOMICS

1. These rules are developed in accordance with the Requirements for articles submitted for publication in the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics approved by the Academic Council of the University (Minutes No. 7 as of 25.04.2016)

2. The editor of the periodical scientific publications of the University notifies the authors by e-mail or by phone about the article’s receipt within 7 working days. Articles are submitted in an electronic and paper 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 “AntiPlagiarism” and a two-level peer review system (external and internal peer review).

4. Manuscripts which do not meet the profile of the scientific publication and the Requirements for articles submitted to the scientific bulletins of Lviv University of Trade and Economics are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration the executive secretary of the journal informs the author (-s) about.

5. The executive secretary of the scientific publication sends the registered manuscripts to a specific reviewer (reviewers) having the degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences in accordance with the profile of the submitted article. The editor-in-chief of the journal appoints reviewers or authorizes the deputy editor-in-chief to do it.

6. External reviewers engaged on a voluntary basis are leading scientists from other institutions of higher education, research establishments of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and branch academies of sciences. Internal review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the scientific publication and, on behalf of the editor-in-chief, employees of the University having the degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences, who work at the departments and teach the relevant subjects.

7. In case of disputes (if the author (s) doesn’t/don’t agree with the comments, it is possible to involve additional reviewers (both external and internal). In this case, in agreement with the editor-in-chief, the executive secretary of the journal sends the article for review to another reviewer.

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

9. Articles review is confidential. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed.

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

11. Before publication, manuscripts are subject to additional review by 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 topic;
• compliance of the article’s topic with the profile of the scientific publication;
• justification of the relevance of the article;
• compliance of the article’s content with the topic;
• assessment of the research novelty;
• expediency of publishing the article taking into account the before
published research results of other authors;
• justification of particular positive aspects as well as the shortcomings of the article, amendments which the author (s) should make (if any);
• remarks on the presentation and execution of the article’s text (including an option of reducing the volume of the article without damage to understanding of the outlined scientific provisions and results);
• objective and principle 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 reasonability of its publication in one of the following terms:
• to recommend for publication in the scientific journal "« ";
• to recommend for publication in the scientific journal "…" with technical changes;
• to recommend for publication in the scientific journal "…" after the author (s) has/have fixed the reviewer's comments with a subsequent re-review by the same reviewer;
• to recommend to refuse publishing in the scientific publication " "because of its non-compliance with the requirements for the scientific level of the publication with the indication of specific alterations.

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 with the profile of the scientific journal and approved requirements for publications;
• the lack of a revised version of the article in accordance with the reviewer's remarks (or a substantiated refutation of the remarks);
• low quality of the scientific article (violation of the structure of the article, lack of a clear purpose of the study, lack of the analysis of publications of other authors on relevant topics, lack of statistical analysis of experimental research, insufficient justification of conclusions, re-publication of research results);
• violation of one's copyright or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics.

16. Upon receipt of a negative review, the executive secretary of the editorial board sends a copy of the review with a proposal to revise the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or to refute them in due time to the author (s).

17. The author (s) must return the revised version of the article to the editorial office no later than 2 weeks after receiving the comments. In case of non-return of the article to the editorial office after the expiration of this period or the need for more than two revisions, the original date of its registration is canceled 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 editor-in-chief (or deputy editor-in-chief) for approval for publication in the next issue of the scientific publication. If necessary, the decision on the appropriateness of the 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. The editor makes minor stylistic or formal adjustments, which do not affect the content of the article, 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 under the date of approval by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or the editorial board.

21. Reviewers, members of the editorial board, as well as editorial staff have no authority 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 are stored (together with reviews) in the editorial archive for five calendar years. Manuscripts are not returned to the authors.