Guidelines for editors and reviewers

The Editorial Board consists of international experts in their fields. All members of the Board occupy the positions in educational and research institutions. The roles of the Editorial Board members are the following:

  • provide expertise in definite research field;
  • judge the submitted manuscripts and involve in the process independent reviewers;
  • advise on journal policy and scope and participate in the journal development;
  • propose subject definition and conference choice for special issues. Also, editorial members may be guest editors of special issue;
  • promote the journal at conferences, seminars, workshops, and relevant public events;
  • attract new potential authors;

Guest editors play a vital role in ensuring the quality of special content publications, such as Special Issues. Guest editors overlook the process, from proposal to publication.

The Editorial Board is reviewed every two years, which means exclusion of inactive members and addition of the new ones.

We appreciate applications from the editorial candidates. To submit an application, please send an e-mail to an editorial assistant of the selected journal and attach a file with your CV (containing the current place of work, occupation, education, the scope of your scientific interest, types of activity, list of publications, list of the journals in which you occupy the positions of an editor or a reviewer, e-mail for contact and a link to personal page at you university).

Duties of editors

We strongly recommend that Editors get acquainted with and follow COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The editors of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor may confer with the members of the Editorial Board in making this decision.

Fair play. The editors evaluate manuscripts without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality. The editors, members of the Editorial Boards, and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone except the authors of the paper, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, for appropriate reasons.

Disclosure. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper should not be used in the own research of the editors or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.

Guidelines for Reviewers

LLC “CPC “Business Perspectives” clearly understands the importance of an effective peer review process when authors choose to submit their manuscripts to one of our journals. We try hard to establish and sustain peer-review integrity on every journal and a vital part of this means ensuring that reviewers have the appropriate resources to carry out their work as efficiently and effectively as possible. The reviewing process varies from journal to journal, but this guide serves as an overview of what’s involved when becoming a reviewer with LLC “CPC “Business Perspectives”.

We strongly recommend that our reviewers are familiar with and follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information.

During the peer review process, Referee Report preparation, and after reviewing we expect from our reviewers following:

1. Confidentiality

  • In order to maintain the integrity of the review process, the reviewers shouldn't discuss the reviewed manuscript with anyone without specific permission from the Editor.
  • The reviewers are welcome to solicit input from one or two colleagues in performing the review, but this should only be done with explicit permission from the Editor. In addition, colleagues’ (with names and affiliations) involvement should be mentioned in the Comments to Editors section of the Referee Report.
  • The reviewers shouldn’t copy, disseminate, or share information, concerning the manuscript for any purpose (including advancement of their own research).
  • If any clarifications from the author/authors are needed, they should be included into the Comments section of the Referee Report.

2. Standards of objectivity

Reviewers should be objective while conducting reviews. All the comments and recommendations should be supported with relevant arguments.

3. Timeliness

  • It is necessary to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame.
  • If the reviewers feel qualified to assess a particular manuscript, they should agree to review only in case of possibility to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame.
  • The reviews should be completed by the deadline indicated in invitation. If any difficulties arise that may prevent from submitting the Referee Report in time, the reviewers are obliged to contact the Handling Editor immediately.

4. Competing interests

  • It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender and/or other characteristics of the authors, origin of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.
  • We kindly ask our reviewers to reveal any potential competing interest that may bias the review of the submitted manuscript (including any financial interest in the publication or non-publication of the manuscript; a recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors; a history of dispute with the authors).
  • If the reviewer is currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or has been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, the invitation of the manuscript reviewing should be rejected.
  • The reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no real intention of submitting a Referee Report.
  • The reviewers are not precluded from reviewing the manuscript because of previously reviewing a version of it for another journal. However, this should be noted in the Comments to Editors section.