 PEER REVIEW POLICY OF
"BUSINESS INFORM" JOURNAL
1. General Provisions
1.1. This Policy governs the peer review procedure for scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of Business Inform journal and applies to all participants in the editorial process - authors, reviewers and editors.
1.2. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the high quality of publications through independent expert assessment of manuscripts and to provide authors with constructive feedback for improving their scholarly work.
1.3. The editorial board is guided in its activities by the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE), in particular the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
2. Type of Peer Review
2.1. Business Inform journal applies the procedure of double-blind peer review (double-blind peer review): the identities of authors are unknown to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are unknown to authors throughout the entire review process.
2.2. Prior to sending a manuscript for review, the managing editor removes all information that could identify the authors (names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-citations, etc.).
2.3. The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the editorial board. Disclosure of a reviewer’s identity is possible only with their explicit written consent.
3. Manuscript Processing Stages
Stage 1. Initial Editorial Check (up to 5 business days)
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board carries out an initial check covering: relevance to the journal’s thematic scope; compliance with article formatting requirements; presence of all mandatory structural elements; level of textual borrowings (plagiarism check). Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are returned to authors for revision or rejected without being sent for review, with reasons provided.
Stage 2. Assignment of Reviewers (up to 3 business days)
The managing editor assigns a registration code to the manuscript, anonymises it, and appoints two independent reviewers, taking into account their scholarly specialisation, absence of conflicts of interest, and current workload.
Stage 3. External Peer Review (up to 14 business days)
The anonymised manuscript is sent to: a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scholarly field; and an external reviewer - a domestic or international specialist with publications in the subject area of the manuscript.
Stage 4. Editorial Decision (up to 3 business days after receipt of reviews)
The final decision is taken at an editorial board meeting, taking into account the reviews received.
Stage 5. Notification of the Author
The author receives notification of the editorial board’s decision together with the texts of the reviews (with reviewer anonymity maintained).
The overall indicative timeframe from submission to first decision is generally no more than 3 weeks.
4. Criteria for Reviewer Selection
4.1. Reviewers are selected from among scholars who hold a doctorate or candidate of sciences (PhD) degree in the relevant specialisation, have current publications in the subject area of the manuscript, are not affiliated with the institution(s) of the author(s), and have no conflict of interest with the authors.
4.2. A reviewer is required to notify the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest before commencing the review and to decline to review the manuscript if such a conflict exists. A conflict of interest is deemed to exist in the following cases: co-authorship with the manuscript’s authors within the past 3 years; supervisory or subordinate relationships; personal or financial relationships; competing research in the same subject area.
4.3. Manuscripts for which members of the editorial board are listed as authors or co-authors are handled under a special procedure: such manuscripts are not processed by the editors involved, but are instead submitted for fully independent peer review organised by another member of the editorial board or an invited independent editor who has no relationship with the authors. Editorial board members do not participate in editorial decisions regarding their own manuscripts.
5. Reviewer Obligations
5.1. Upon receiving an invitation to review, a reviewer is required to: confirm or decline the invitation as promptly as possible; notify the editorial board of any conflict of interest; adhere to the stipulated review preparation timeframe (14 business days); and, if unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, notify the editorial board in advance.
5.2. A reviewer is required to:
- treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not share it with third parties without the permission of the editorial board;
- refrain from using unpublished materials from the manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author;
- provide an objective, impartial and constructive assessment of the manuscript;
- substantiate their conclusions with references to specific passages in the manuscript and relevant sources;
- avoid personal criticism of the authors;
- notify the editorial board of any suspicions of plagiarism, duplicate publication or other ethical violations.
5.3. Reviewers are prohibited from uploading the manuscript or any part thereof to generative artificial intelligence tools, as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and intellectual property rights. Any use of AI tools for ancillary purposes in the course of the review must be disclosed in the review report.
6. Manuscript Assessment Criteria
The reviewer assesses the manuscript against the following criteria:
Scientific content: relevance to the journal’s thematic scope; timeliness and scholarly significance of the topic; clarity of the formulation of the research aim and objectives; originality and scientific novelty; soundness and correctness of methodology; reliability and completeness of the presentation of results; consistency of conclusions with the research aim and results; practical value of the work.
Quality of presentation: logical coherence and sequencing of structure; clarity and intelligibility of exposition; quality and appropriateness of illustrative material (tables, figures).
Scholarly communication: comprehensiveness and currency of the reference list; correctness of citation; engagement with current domestic and international publications on the topic.
7. Decisions Following Peer Review
Following peer review, the reviewer selects one of the following recommendations:
- Accept for publication - the manuscript meets all requirements and may be accepted for publication without changes or with minor technical corrections.
- Accept for publication after revision - the manuscript has scholarly merit but requires substantial or minor revision in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. The revised version is submitted for re-review.
- Reject - the manuscript has fundamental scholarly or methodological shortcomings that cannot be remedied through revision. The reviewer is required to provide a detailed written justification for this decision.
8. Revision Procedure
8.1. The author receives the reviews with specific comments and suggestions (with reviewer anonymity maintained) and is required to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response letter explaining what changes have been made and why certain comments have not been addressed.
8.2. The revised manuscript is submitted for re-review by the same reviewers. If the re-review decision is again negative, the manuscript is rejected.
8.3. Revision timeframes: for minor corrections — up to 14 days; for substantial revision — up to 30 days. Where necessary, the author may request an extension from the editorial board.
9. Appeals
9.1. Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they consider it to be unsubstantiated. An appeal is submitted in the form of a reasoned letter to the editorial board setting out in detail the grounds for the challenge.
9.2. The editorial board reviews the appeal and provides a response within 14 business days. If the appeal is found to be substantiated, the manuscript may be sent for additional peer review.
9.3. The decision taken as a result of the appeal is final.
10. Retention of Documentation
Reviews and peer review materials are retained by the editorial board in electronic form for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.
11. Ethical Obligations of Editors
11.1. Editors are required to: consider all manuscripts objectively and impartially, regardless of the race, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs or political views of the authors; maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts at all stages of the editorial process; refrain from using unpublished manuscript materials in their own research; and take appropriate action in the event of identified breaches of publication ethics, in accordance with COPE recommendations.
11.2. Editors are prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence tools to make editorial decisions or to prepare correspondence regarding specific manuscripts.
PEER REVIEW FORM
|
УКР
ENG