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 and is being prepared for indexing in ERIH PLUS and SCOPUS. Therefore, the first stage of the procedure for the acceptance of an article for print is the evaluation and eventual return of the submitted manuscript for refining its technical parameters (volume, style, citation techniques, font, transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet in the bibliography, etc.) according to the technical requirements of the journal.
REVIEW
The Editorial Board has engaged renowned scholars from the fields of economics, management, social sciences and tourism to conduct a double-blind peer review of each of the submitted articles. After verifying the originality of the text, the editor-in-chief removes the author’s name from the text of the paper and from the properties of the electronic file, and submits the proposed paper to two of the reviewers. In the course of the evaluation, they complete a review form (see mock-up at the bottom of the page), indicating in its final part a clear opinion whether the proposed paper should be rejected or accepted (without corrections, with necessary corrections but without second peer review, or for second peer review after recommended, necessary corrections). If one of the two reviewers has rejected the paper, it is submitted to an arbitrator for assessment, whose positive evaluation is a necessary condition for the procedure to continue.
Once the review forms have been received by the Editorial Board, the editor-in-chief informs the author of the reviewers’ opinion and, if necessary, provides him/her with the final part of the review to make the necessary corrections. The author submits the new version of his/her article within two weeks. Then, the author’s name and affiliation are added to the text, pre-press preparation is carried out, and the author receives his/her article to authorize it for publication. This is the last opportunity to make (only minor) corrections.
The Editorial Board decides on the final acceptance of the papers for publication. The editors also have the right to reject those that are not in line with the aims of the journal and do not meet the criteria mentioned above.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A MANUSCRIPT FOR PRINTING
See the Guidelines for Authors section https://journals.uni-vt.bg/sia/eng/req.aspx
PUBLISHER’S REVIEW
Socio-Economic Analyses
Edition of the Faculty of Economics of the St. Cyril and St. Methodius University
of Veliko Tarnovo
Instructions: The journal adheres to the best academic standards and therefore treats the publication of articles as a creative and collaborative process between authors, reviewers and the Editorial Board. The purpose of the publisher’s review is to evaluate and develop the academic quality of the material proposed for publication. Constructive criticism is a necessary part of these processes and should therefore be conducted in a professional style.
Reviewers must send their reviews to the journal’s Editorial Board within 30 days.
If necessary, reviewers can make notes directly on the text by using the "Track changes” option in Word (applies if an electronic copy of the reviewed material is provided), or directly on the text with a pen (pencil), following the symbols and rules for corrections and notes (applies if a physical copy of the reviewed material is provided).
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 Bulgarian 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.