The process of scientific article reviewis an essential stage in the publication process. It helps the Editors-in-Chief make decisions on the publication of the article and the Author (s) – on the manuscript’s improvement.

The reviewers are both Members of Editorial Board and External reviewers who are invited by the Editorial Board to participate in the reviewing process, depending on their research interests.

Members of the Editorial Office (Managing Editors, Technical Editors) do not make decisions on papers.

The “SocioEconomic Challenges” journal supports the double-blind peer review system.

This process takes the following form:

1. The corresponding author submits a manuscript and a cover letter signed by all authors to the Editorial office.
2. The Editor checks if the paper meets the Journal’s requirements, aims and scope. If the manuscript does not comply with the aforementioned criteria, it should be rejected. The Editors have the right to reject papers during the pre-review phase. Rejected manuscripts are not subject to additional review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the article for consideration. Time for First Decision – up to 1 week.
3. The Editorial Board assigns reviewers according to their scientific interests. The “SocioEconomic Challenges” Journal has a double-blind peer review system, meaning that reviewers and authors remain anonymous.
4. Reviewers must accept all prerequisite terms and conditions to prevent conflicts of interest, certify to their subject-matter competence with respect to the paper’s topic, and specify precise criteria for reviewing. The choice is then made to accept or decline the invitation. If they agree, they should provide the Referee report with recommendations on time.
5. The reviewers send the suggestions/recommendations and indicate one of the following decisions (please see the Guidelines for reviewers):
   • Accept: to accept the article for publishing in its original form.
   • Minor revision: the article requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the review.
   • Major revision: substantial review of the article content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the review.
   • Reject: to reject the article on the basis stated in the review.

   The main criteria for article selection include the authenticity of scientific ideas and proposals,innovation of the scientific approach, significance of scientific results in its field, theoretical basis, quality and completeness of the review of existing research and publications, clarity of research methodology, literacy and adherence to editorial requirements (Journal aim and scope).

   There are a variety of reasons why a paper may be rejected, but these can generally be categorised as content or editorial reasons.

   In most cases, content issues with the content prevent findings from being published until the author has completed additional work, such as additional experiments or analyses.

   There are several content reasons for rejection:

   • Incomplete data due to a limited sample size, missing data, or inadequate controls.
   • Poor analysis, such as the use of improper statistical tests or a complete lack of statistics.
   • Inappropriate methodology that is for answering the hypothesis oroutdated approaches that have been replaced by newer, more potent techniques that produce more reliable results.
   • Weak research motivation when the hypothesis is unclear or not based on science, or when the data does not address the research topic.
   • False conclusions drawn from the data that are not supported by assumptions.

   To avoid rejection, it is important to spend enough time researching the field, select the issue to focus on, develop a hypothesis and organise a thorough experiment.

   There are also editorial reasons for rejection, including:

   • The article is out of scope for the journal.
   • Plagiarism is detected in the article (each article is checked for plagiarism using the company’s software StrikePlagiarism and iThenticate before being accepted for publication).
   • The author violates or ignores publication ethics.
   • The structure is improper or the journal formatting requirements are not followed.
   • The lack of information required for readers to comprehend and replicate the authors’ analyses and experiments.
   • Outdated references are used or there is a high percentage of authors’ self-citations in the reference list.
   • Poor language quality of the paper that cannot be understood by readers.
   • Complicated logic or incorrect data are presented.
6. After reviewing, the Editorial Board examines the Referee Reports and may request another reviewer to provide one more Referee Report in some cases.
7. The Editorial Board review the suggestions/recommendations made by the reviewers and makes the final decision, which is approved by the Editors-in-Chief.
8. Author(s) receive the Referee Reports the reviewers’ names. If there are any recommendations for corrections to the manuscript, the corresponding author should send the revised article along with a file titled “Response to Reviewers’ Comments” in which all experts’ comments should be addressed. Authors may also disagree with an reviewers’ decision by offering own arguments and explanations. The opinions and suggestions expressed in the articles do not necessarily coincide with the point of view of the Editorial Board. Authors are responsible for the reliability of the information presented in articles, including the accuracy of names, statistical data, surnames, and quotes.
9. The revised manuscript, approved by the reviewers, is prepared for publication. If the manuscript is rejected, the author(s) is/are informed about this decision. If the article has received positive reviews and permission for publication, all co-authors must sign the “Author’s Agreement” to publish the revised version of the manuscript.