ST.CYRIL AND ST. METHODIUS UNIVERSITY OF VELIKO TARNOVO
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSES
(PROCEDURE)
INDEXING AND REFERENCING
Socio-economic analyses has been published since 2006. It is indexed in a number of national and international databases: The National Reference List, COBISS+, Erich Plus, the Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL), Open Access, the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD), the Worldcat Directory, the Directory of Research Journals Indexing (DRJI), Root Indexing, Scientific Indexing Services, the Eurasian Scientific Journal Index (ESJI), the Advanced Science Index, the ResearchBIB Academic Resource Index, CiteFactor and the International Citation Index (ICI), Sudoc, EZB. To ensure the standard of scientific developments and texts published remains consistent, a rigorous peer review process is in place. At the initial stage, it is possible that a manuscript may be returned for further editing of the technical parameters of the proposed publication (e.g. length, style, citation techniques, font) according to the technical requirements of the journal.
Peer-review process
The review is carried out by the Board of Anonymous Reviewers, which comprises authoritative scientists and researchers from the fields of economics, management, the social sciences and tourism, both from within the country and from abroad. The peer-review process requires each author's submission to be reviewed anonymously by two reviewers. To increase objectivity and preserve anonymity, manuscripts are submitted for review without any information that could reveal the author's identity. Each submitted manuscript is subject to a double-blind review. To ensure objectivity and anonymity in the review process, reviewers are provided with manuscripts that do not reveal the authors' identities. During the evaluation process, the reviewers complete a review form (see the mock-up at the end of the page) in which they provide a clear opinion on whether the submission should be rejected or accepted, with or without corrections, or revised after recommended corrections. Reviewers must send their reviews to the editorial board within 30 days. If one of the two reviewers rejects the article, it is also submitted to an arbitrator for evaluation, whose positive assessment is a prerequisite for continuing the procedure.
Once the review form has been received by the editorial board, the author is informed of the reviewers' opinion and, if necessary, provided with the final part of the review ('Recommendations and overall assessment') to make any necessary corrections. The author(s) submit the new version of the article within two weeks. The author’s name and affiliation are then added to the text, the pre-press preparation is carried out, and the author(s) receives the article to authorise it for publication. This is the last opportunity to make minor corrections.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject any articles proposed for publication that do not align with the journal's objectives or ethical rules, or that do not meet the aforementioned criteria.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A MANUSCRIPT FOR PRINTING
See the Guidelines for Authors section http://journals.uni-vt.bg/sia/eng/req.aspx
PUBLISHING REVIEW
Socio-economic Analyses
Edition of the Faculty of Economics at the St. St. Curol and Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo
Instructions: As the journal adheres to the highest academic standards, it treats the publication of articles as a creative and collaborative process involving authors, reviewers, and the editorial board. The publisher’s review aims to evaluate and enhance the academic quality of material proposed for publication. Constructive criticism is an essential part of this process and must be delivered professionally.
Reviewers should submit their reviews to the Editorial Board of the journal within 30 days.
If necessary, reviewers can make notes directly on the text using the “Track Changes” option in Word, provided an electronic copy of the reviewed material is available. Alternatively, they can make notes directly on the text with a pen or pencil, following the symbols and rules for corrections and notes, provided a physical copy of the reviewed material is available.
Date of sending the review:
І. REVIEWER:
II. TITLE OF ARTICLE:
III. SCIENTIFIC CONTENT
(Mark your judgement with an X. The scale ranges from: excellent /5/ to poor /0/ ).
|
C R I T E R I A
|
Mark
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The article is related to the subject matter of the journal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is up to date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic of the article is original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent scientific literature has been included
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequate scientific methods have been applied
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant results have been achieved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments supporting the conclusion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ІV. MANUSCRIPT QUALITY
(Mark your judgement with an X. The scale ranges from: excellent /5/ to poor /0/ ).
|
C R I T E R I A
|
Mark
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The abstract reflects the content clearly enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The theme is introduced clearly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous achievements are presented correctly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The methodology and methods are formulated precisely
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structure of the article's exposition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of the conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization and correctness of cited works
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clear academic English language
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Length of the article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. DECISION
(Select only one decision and put an X in the appropriate box.)
|
D E C I S I O N
|
YES
|
NO
|
|
To be accepted for printing as submitted
(if all criteria in both sections have a score equal to or greater than 3)
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with minor corrections, without the need for further review (comments should be reflected in the provided copy)
(if no more than 1 criterion in section 1 and/or no more than 2 in section 2 have a score less than 3 but not 0)
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with major corrections and to be peer reviewed again
(comments should be reflected in the providedcopy)
(if no more than two criteria in section 1 and/or no more than 3 in section 2 score below 3 but not 0)
|
|
|
|
To be rejected
(if more than two criteria in section 1 and/or more than three criteria in section 2 have a score below 3 or if there are criteria with a score of 0)
|
|
|
VІ. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHOR:
|
Dear Sir/Madam,
To improve the quality of your text, it would be good to correct:
1. No recommendations
2.
3.
4.
|
Confidentiality: the compilers ensure that the reviews will remain anonymous and for their sole use. Authors will receive only the notes in the text (if applicable), the recommendations under Section VI and the final result under Section V.