Shkarlet S. M., Doctor of Economics, Professor.
Deputy Editors in Chief:
Butko M. P., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Ilchuk V. P., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Derii Zh. V., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Marhasova V. G., Doctor of Economics, Professor.
Members of the Editorial Board:
Vdovenko S. M., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Hazuda L. М., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Hazuda М. V., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Hohol T. A., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Honta O. I., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Polishchuk Ye. А., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Sahaidak M. Р., Doctor of Economics, Professor;
Britchenko I. Г., Doctor of Economics, Professor, State Higher Educational Institution named prof. Stanislaus Tarnowski (Tarnobrzeg, Poland);
Grosu Veronica, Doctor of Economics, Professor; Stefan cel Mare University (Suceava, Romania);
Socoliuc Marian, PhD in Economics, Stefan cel Mare University (Suceava, Romania);
Dubyna M. V., PhD in Economics, Associate Professor.
Responsible Secretary: Dubyna Maksym
сellphone: +38 (099) 376-32-87
Review procedure and adherence to editorial ethics:
All articles submitted for publication in the academic journal Problems and Prospects of the Economy and Management, should obligatory pass the review procedure.
The editorial policy of the magazine is based on the following principles:
– professional selection of reviewers when considering scientific manuscripts;
– high demanding quality of the scientific research;
– objectivity and impartiality in conducting the scientific review;
– confidentiality of the review outcomes of scientific manuscripts;
– effectiveness of reviewing the submitted scientific articles;
– prevention of scientific plagiarism;
– strict adherence to copyright and related rights.
The editorial board categorically condemns manifestations of plagiarism in articles as a violation of copyright and scientific ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent it.
All scientific manuscripts necessarily undergo a procedure for checking the availability of borrowings and the existence of plagiarism.
The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (the double-blind review).
1. Scientific articles, which have passed the initial technical control on conformity with the thematic orientation of the scientific journal and the technical design of the manuscript to the established requirements, are allowed to be reviewed.
2. In case there are significant comments relating technical design of the submitted article for consideration, it can be returned to the author (s) for the revision.
3. By the positive conclusion regarding the technical design of the article, all information about the author (s) is deleted from the manuscript and the article is sent to the reviewer.
4. The reviewer shall read the article and is required to provide a detailed review within two weeks.
The criteria for checking by reviewers of the scientific manuscript are:
- originality of the scientific research;
- thorough research of the scientific literature in the field of the study;
- use of statistical and econometric research methods;
- application of visualization methods for the research outcomes;
- disclosure of the contents of all main sections of the article;
- correct justification of the purpose, objectives, conclusions of the research;
- scientific style of presentation of the research outcomes;
After considering the materials, the reviewer should make one of the following decisions:
- accept the manuscript for publication in the academic journal;
- accept the manuscript for publication in the academic journal with minor corrections (technical or scientific in agreement with the author (s));
- submit a scientific article for refinement to the author (s) with re-review;
- reject the article without the possibility of re-submitting (especially if there is plagiarism and a significant amount of borrowings).
5. If necessary, refine the article. Recommendations of reviewers are sent by e-mail to the author (s).
6. After refining the article and, if necessary, re-reviewing, its new version is again sent to the reviewer without information about the authors.
7. In case of a repeated negative review, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
8. After the reviewer's positive conclusion, the article is accepted for publication and transmitted to the editorial department.
9. Reviews and recommendations for each article are kept in the editorial office for at least three years.
10. Scientific manuscripts that are prepared by the members of the editorial board are not subject to the review.