The editorial Board of the journal Geoeconomics of Energetics mainly uses the method of double-blind (anonymous) review, that is, the reviewer and the author do not know each other.
Reviewing takes from 2 to 8 weeks and consists of several stages. The newly submitted manuscript is initially reviewed internally by the editorial staff, including the editor-in-chief. At this stage, the material is pre-evaluated and may be rejected for the following reasons:
- obviously low quality of the material (ignorance of the main sources and literature on the topic, poor evidence base, repetition of conclusions and theses already available and well-known in the scientific literature on the subject, journalistic nature of the text, etc.)
- the manuscript does not fit into the editorial policy and subject of the journal; the priority in determining the correspondence of the manuscript to the subject of the journal and the directions of publishing activity belongs to the editorial Board
- the content of the manuscript does not correspond to the stated topic
- when submitting a manuscript, the current requirements for registration are not taken into account.
The manuscript that has passed the preliminary stage is sent for external scientific review to an authoritative expert in this subject area.
All reviewers in their work are based on the principles formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics and comply with the Code of ethics of scientific publications of the non-Profit partnership Committee on publication ethics.
The review process evaluates the quality, originality and integrity of the proposed material.
The reviewer carries out scientific examination of the author’s materials, as a result of which his actions should be unbiased and his responsibilities include:
- confidentiality (it is unacceptable to transfer or familiarize third parties who do not have the appropriate authority from the editorial Board with the text of the review);
- detection of plagiarism and other unethical practices;
- efficiency and objectivity in the work, reasoned evaluation of the research results, personal criticism of the author is unacceptable;
- control of indication of information sources;
- unconditional identification and exclusion of conflicts of interest, including the absence of official and other relations between the reviewer and the author;
- assistance in making publishing decisions
Unpublished data from the reviewed manuscript cannot be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
The review contains both a set of formal criteria for evaluating the material (scientific novelty, relevance of the study, the degree of disclosure of the topic, etc.), and (if necessary) recommendations to the author on the revision of the material. If necessary, the reviewer may recommend the necessary amendments or re-submission of the article after revision. The reviewer can also recommend refusal to accept the article for various reasons.
The editorial Board is guided by the opinion of the reviewer when deciding on the acceptance/rejection of the article for publication. The author is obliged to take into account the main comments of the reviewer when finalizing the text.
The text of the review is stored in the editorial office for at least 5 years. If necessary, the author is sent a copy of the review or a reasoned refusal. Also, upon request, a copy of the review is sent to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation.