Peer review

 

ST.CYRIL AND ST. METHODIUS UNIVERSITY OF VELIKO TARNOVO

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS

Journal of Social and Economic Analysis 5

000 Veliko Tarnovo, Arh. G. Kozarov Str.1, e-mail: sia-sf@uni-vt.bg tel.+ 359 62 622 247, ,+ 359 62 615 062, Bulgaria, www.uni-vt.bg

 

INDEXATION AND REFERENCING

 

Socio-economic analyzes Journal has been in publication since 2006 and has been prepared for citation indexing in ERIH PLUS and SCOPUS. For this reason, the first stage of the procedure for the acceptance of a certain article for publication is the evaluation and the possible returning for additional adjustment of the technical parameters of the presented manuscript (length, style, data citation principles, font, transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet in the Bibliography, etc.) according to the technical requirements of the journal.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING MANUSCRIPT:

See: Guidelines for authors (http://journals.uni-vt.bg/sia/eng/req.aspx)

 

Download the ARTICLE REVIEW FORM here:

http://ndox.abv.bg/download?id=91ffcb369b

 

 

ARTICLE REVIЕW FORM

Journal of Social and Economic Analysis

Edition of Faculty of Economics, “St. Cyril and St. Methodius” University of Veliko Tarnovo

 

 

Instructions: The journal sticks to the best academic standards and therefore treats article publishing as creative process of cooperation between the author, the   reviewers and editorial board. The purpose of the publishing recension is to evaluate and develop the academic quality of the applied publishing materials. The constructive criticism is a necessary part of these processes and therefore it should be represented in a professional style.

The reviewers should send the reviews to the editing board of the journal within 30 days.

If necessary the reviewers may put down remarks directly in the text, using the WORD option “Track changes”(it is valid for electronic copy of the reviewed work) or directly over the text by a pen (pencil), observing the symbols and the rules for corrections and remarking in case material copy of the reviewed work is submitted. 

 

Date of review:

І. REVIEWER:

ІІ. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:

ІІІ. SCIENCE CONTENT 

(check with sign  Х  your mark.  The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)

 

 

C R I T E R I A

MARK

5

4

3

2

1

0

The article is connected with the theme of the edition

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article is actual

 

 

 

 

 

 

The theme of the article is actual

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual science literature is included

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate science methods are applied

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significant results are achieved

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments, in favor of the conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ІV. QUALITY OF THE WRITTEN WORK

(check with sign  Х  your mark.  The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)

 

C R I T E R I A

MARK

5

4

3

2

1

0

The abstract presents the content clear enough

 

 

 

 

 

 

The theme is clearly introduced

 

 

 

 

 

 

The previous achievements are supplied correctly

 

 

 

 

 

 

The methodology and the methods are clearly specified

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structure of the presentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearness of the conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organization and correctness of the cited literature

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clear academic language

 

 

 

 

 

 

Length of the article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. DECISION 

(choose only one decision and check with X in the field)

D E C I S I O N

YES

NO

To be accepted for printing according to the outlook it is supplied

(in cases when all the criteria in both sections are with a result higher than 3)

 

 

To be accepted for printing with slight corrections without necessarily being reviewed again (the remarks should be put on the supplied copy)

 (in cases when not more than one criteria in section 1 and/or not more than two criteria in section 2 have been evaluated lower than 3 but not 0)

 

 

To be accepted for publishing with basic corrections and to be reviewed again (the remarks should be put on the supplied copy)

 (in cases when not more than two criteria in section 1 and/or not more than 3 in section 2 have been evatuated  lower than 3 but not 0)

 

 

To be rejected

(in cases when more than two criteria in section 1 and/or more than three in section 2 have been evaluated under 3 or there is a criteria with mark 0)

 

 

 

VІ. RECOMMENDATIONS TO AUTHOR:

 

Dear Mrs / Mr,

In order the quality of your text to be improved it would be nice if you correct:

1. No recommendations

2.

3.

4.

 

Confidentiality: the compliers guarantee that the reviews will remain anonymous and only for their use. The authors will receive only the remarks in the text (if applicable), the recommendations according to point V and the final result according to point VІ.