KV #19905-9705 PR dated 02.04.2013.



According to the decision No. 802 of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine dated 14.03.2024, is registered as a subject in the field of print media.
ID R30-03156


Liburkina L. M.


Main page

Editorial staff

Editorial policy

Annotated catalogue (2011)

Annotated catalogue (2012)

Annotated catalogue (2013)

Annotated catalogue (2014)

Annotated catalogue (2015)

Annotated catalogue (2016)

Annotated catalogue (2017)

Annotated catalogue (2018)

Annotated catalogue (2019)

Annotated catalogue (2020)

Annotated catalogue (2021)

Annotated catalogue (2022)

Annotated catalogue (2023)

Annotated catalogue (2024)

Thematic sections of the journal

Proceedings of scientific conferences

on peer-reviewing and order of handling articles in the “Business Inform” journal

1. The present regulations regulate the order of reviewing and handling articles that are delivered to the Editorial Board of the “Business Inform” journal.

2. Aim of reviewing – increase of quality of scientific articles published in the journal by means of assessment of materials by highly qualified experts.

3. The review procedure is anonymous both for reviewer and for the authors and is performed by two independent reviewers (double “blind” reviewing).

4. All reviewers shall stick to requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics with respect to ethics in scientific publications and to be objective and impartial.

5. The following issues are considered in reviews:

  • whether article contents correspond with its subject (set in title);
  • whether article contents correspond with subject directions of the journal;
  • whether article contents have certain novelty;
  • whether article corresponds with the scientific level of the journal;
  • whether article publication is expedient, taking into account earlier publications on this issue and whether it is of interest for a wide circle of readers;
  • what exactly are positive sides and shortcomings of the article; what corrections and additions (if any) should be introduced by the author.

6. Only those articles, which were prepared in strict accordance with the «Article requirements» and that passed primary control of the Editorial Board, would be passed over for reviewing.

7. In the event of availability of remarks at the stage of primary control, the article can be sent back to the author on the grounds specified in Clause 5 of «Article requirements».

8. In the event of observance of the above listed requirements, a copy of the article is passed over to the Production Editor.

9. The Production Editor gives a registration code to the article and removes information about the author(s) from it (article coding).

10. The coded article is sent via electronic mail to:
a) a member of the Editorial Board who is responsible for the scientific direction of the article’s subject-matter;
b) an external reviewer.
External reviewers are domestic and foreign PhDs that have scientific works on the subject-matter declared in the article. A letter is sent by the Editorial Board to such a scientist with a request to review the article. The coded article and a standard review form are enclosed with the letter.
As a rule, an external reviewer is selected in random manner with consideration of his or her workload and agreement.

11. The Editorial Board member and external reviewer, who received the coded article, fill in a standard form (see Supplement) and choose one of the variants of recommendation – recommended for publication; recommended for revision; not recommended for publication.

12. In the event of refusal to publish or when revision is needed, the reviewer/member of the Editorial Board should provide a written well-reasoned justification of such a decision.

13. Term of making recommendations – two weeks from the moment of receipt of the article.

14. Recommendations of reviewers are sent to the Production Editor via electronic mail.

15. The final decision with respect to the article is made during a meeting of the Editorial Board, which is held once a week and composed of: Chief Editor (Deputy Chief Editor), Science Editor and Production Editor. The decision is made with consideration of the received reviews.

16. The article, which was accepted for publication, is handled further by the Editorial Staff in accordance with the production process of preparation of the article.

17. Decision of the Editorial Board is sent to the author(s). Articles that are subject to revision are sent to the author(s) together with the text of the4 review, which contains specific recommendations on revision of the article. Editorial Board guarantees anonymity of reviewers.

18. The revised variant of the article is sent for the second reviewing. In the event the second review is also negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

19. Editorial Board does not enter into argument with authors of rejected articles.

20. Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the Editorial Office in the electronic form during 2 years from the date of issue of the journal edition, where the reviewed article is published.

21. The following articles are not reviewed: a) articles, the authors (co-authors) of which are members of the Editorial Staff and Editorial Board of the journal; b) articles, which are written by request of the Editorial Board.

Chief Editor,
Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Full Professor_________V. S. Ponomarenko

Science Editor,
Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Full Professor_________M. O. Kyzym

Production Editor,
Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Associate Professor_____V. Ye. Khaustova



Title of the Article:

Registration code:

No. Question to the reviewer Yes No Comments
1Does the subject-matter correspond with the scientific specialisation of the journal?    
2Is the subject-matter scientifically topical and practically useful?    
3Does the name of the article reflect contents and purpose of the article?    
4Does introduction contain clearly set goals?    
5Is scientific reasoning logical and convincing?    
6Are the results of the research represented methodologically correctly? Please, provide proposals if you think that some corrections or adjustments are required.    
7Do conclusions completely and correctly illustrate results of the research, showing what is new and providing proposals for future research?    
8Can or should some parts of the article be reduced, removed, expanded or revised?    
9Do you have any recommendation with respect to the style and wording of the article?    
10Are you satisfied with a number, quality and expediency of references to bibliography?    

Recommendation of the reviewer


Recommended for publication
Recommended for revision
Not recommended for publication


License Contract

Conditions of Publication

Article Requirements

Regulations on Peer-Reviewing

Publication Contract

Current Issue

Frequently asked questions


The Plan of Scientific Conferences


Journal «The Problems of Economy»

  © Business Inform, 1992 - 2024 The site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY-SA. Write to webmaster