The scientific journal "AIC Economics and Management" applies double-blind peer review of manuscripts: the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually unknown throughout the entire review process, ensuring maximum objectivity in evaluating scientific works.

The editorial board recommends that all reviewers familiarize themselves with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adhere to them.

Review Stages

1. Initial Stage

The author submits an article to the editorial board that meets the requirements and rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration and are returned to the authors. 

The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor conducts an initial assessment of each manuscript to determine its compliance with the journal's scope, relevance, and proper formatting. At this stage, plagiarism checking is also performed using specialized software.

2. Double-blind Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo double-blind peer review.  

Manuscripts are sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Article reviewers can be both members of the editorial board and external highly qualified specialists who possess deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field, typically doctors of science.

Before sending to reviewers, all personal data of authors are removed from article texts to ensure anonymity.

Reviewers prepare reviews using a special form and provide their conclusions to the editorial board within 10 days of receiving the manuscript. In case of circumstances causing delays, reviewers must notify the editorial office in advance. Review deadlines may be modified in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of submitted materials.

After analyzing the article, the reviewer completes the review form (Appendix 1). The editorial office notifies the author of the review results by email.

After receiving reviews, the Managing Editor analyzes the reviewers' reports. In cases of significant discrepancies in evaluation, an additional reviewer may be involved to obtain a more complete picture before making a decision.

Interaction between the author and reviewers occurs through email correspondence or through the Managing Secretary with the presentation of the review.

3. Decision Making

Based on reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

- accept the manuscript without changes;

- accept subject to minor corrections;

- send for revision with subsequent re-review;

- reject the manuscript.

Authors are sent notification of the decision along with reviewers' comments (except in cases of rejection without further consideration).

If the manuscript requires revision, authors must address reviewers' comments and submit a corrected version. Revision does not guarantee automatic acceptance of the article – if reviewers consider the changes made insufficient, the article may be rejected.

In case of minor comments, re-review may be conducted directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

If the author has justified objections to the review results, they may provide their arguments and explanations, which will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor.

Final Decision

The final decision on manuscript publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with journal requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making regarding articles with conflicts of interest. In such cases, manuscripts undergo independent review, and the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

During manuscript review, the following are evaluated:

- compliance with the journal's scope;

- scientific novelty and originality of results;

- methodological validity of the research;

- analysis and interpretation of obtained results;

- compliance with the current state of research in a particular field;

- quality of material presentation and manuscript structure;

- compliance with ethical standards of research conduct;

- completeness and relevance of bibliographic references.

Review Timelines

The journal's editorial office strives to ensure prompt manuscript review: Initial manuscript assessment: up to 7 days;

Double-blind peer review: up to 20 days;

Notification to authors about the decision: up to 3 days after completion of review;

Total time from submission to first decision: up to 25 days.

Ensuring Review Quality

To maintain high review standards, the journal:

- regularly updates the reviewer database, involving recognized experts in relevant fields;

- monitors the quality and timeliness of reviews;

- provides reviewers with detailed instructions and forms for manuscript evaluation;

- maintains confidentiality of the review process.

Ethical Aspects of Review

Reviewers are obligated to:

- maintain confidentiality regarding manuscript content;

- decline to review in case of conflict of interest;

- provide objective evaluation without personal bias;

- avoid unfounded criticism or praise;

- adhere to established review deadlines.