Bulletin of Karaganda University Economy Series. Procedure for reviewing and publishing papers
The editorial board of the Bulletin accepts scientific papers in English containing results of research in current areas of economic sciences. Materials not corresponding to the subject shall not be accepted for consideration.
Papers shall be accepted by the editorial board via the online paper submission system, and by e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org (Executive Secretary for the Bulletin is A.N. Lambekova).
Authors shall submit the paper to the editorial office as an electronic file designed in accordance with the requirements (see https://economy-vestnik.ksu.kz/), and a scanned copy of the copyright agreement signed by all authors. The editorial office shall notify the authors of the receipt of a submission within three days.
The review procedure was updated and approved at the meeting of the editorial board. Minutes No. 2 dated 25.05.2020
The manuscript of a scientific paper submitted to the editorial office of the Bulletin is subject to the initial review procedure for compliance with the Bulletin's profile, editorial requirements, and technical design rules. At this stage, the paper (the entire paper file with all output data, annotations and keywords in three languages, a reference list, and author credentials.)
Executive Secretary of the Bulletin shall verify scientific papers for plagiarism in accordance with the "Regulations on checking academic, scientific, graduation, Master's and Doctoral theses for plagiarism" (Buketov State University, 2019). Checking of scientific papers for the presence of borrowings shall be carried out using the licensed plagiarism detection system StrikePlagiarism.com (https://strikeplagiarism.com/en/). Scientific paper shall contain the results of original scientific research previously unpublished and not intended for publication elsewhere. If comments on the subject matter, design, or low originality are found, the paper shall be returned to the authors non-reviewed, and the author receives a corresponding notification.
At least 80% of the text comprising scientific papers submitted for publication in the Bulletin shall be original. In case of non-compliance with the standard of originality, the paper shall be returned for revision with a printout of a verification report. If the paper is not corrected or does not meet the standards of originality after revision, the editorial board shall decide to dismiss.
The paper corresponding to the Bulletin profile and publication requirements shall be admissible and sent for review.
Scientific paper manuscripts are reviewed in the Bulletin’s editorial office to ensure quality of the publication, correctness and reliability of the presentation of results, to maintain the academic image and high scientific level of the publication, and to select the most relevant and practically significant scientific works. All materials
submitted for publication in the Bulletin are subject to review. A scientific paper is reviewed by at least two independent scientists or experts on the relevant issues who are not members of the editorial board.
Editor-in-chief shall appoint reviewers out of experts in relevant fields of research, from among leading foreign (link to foreign reviewers) and local (link to domestic reviewers) scientists fitting the paper profile. Peer review shall be performed using the double-blind peer review method.
The reviewer shall assess the paper for the topic relevance and scientific novelty, the appropriateness of the methods used by the authors, the reliability of the results obtained, and its presentation structure and style (quality of translation into English). All comments and suggestions to the papers shall be made in the review (a Reviewer's Questionnaire) as well. While observing scientific ethics, reviewers shall adhere to the requirements for the ethics of scientific publications, and are as objective and unbiased as possible.
The reviewer can make the following recommendations for the paper publication:
1. "Paper is recommended for publication." In case that the manuscript does not contain comments, meets the requirements of relevance and originality of scientific research. In this case, the manuscript shall be included in the list of prospective publications in the Bulletin;
2. "Paper recommended for publication after handling reviewer's comments." In this case, the paper shall be returned to the authors for handling the comments. After receiving the revised text, the editorial board shall forward the paper to the reviewer with a view to implementing corrections.
3. "After a significant revision, the paper must undergo a re-review." In this case, the paper shall be returned to the authors for significant revision. After receiving the revised text, the editorial board forwards the paper for review again. If the reviewer still has significant comments on the paper, the editorial board shall dismiss it without the right to further revision;
4. "The paper cannot be recommended for publication." In this case, the editorial board shall dismiss the paper.
The Executive Secretary of the Bulletin shall check the paper for compliance with the technical requirements for registration. Papers that do not meet the technical requirements shall be returned to the authors for revision.
The editorial board reserves the right to refuse publication to the author who wishes to ignore the reviewer's comments. The reviewer has the right to conduct an additional check on the use of borrowings in the text of the publication through available online search engines as well.
The review period shall be no more than three weeks.
After receiving reviews, the next meeting of the editorial board shall address the question of received papers and make final decision on whether to publish the paper or dismiss it based on the reviewers' conclusions.
Prepress preparation of a paper for publication is mandatory and consists of technical editing, monitoring compliance with the accepted standards of design and rules for publishing papers in the Bulletin. The editorial board may not agree with the authors on the technical correction of papers and does not enter into discussions with the authors.