Editorial Process and Quality Control System

The Editorial Board operates to ensure the proper conduct of the editorial process and quality control.

To ensure excellent quality, all articles, without exception, proceed through the same editorial process and quality control stages.

The editorial process includes the following stages:

  • receiving an article;
  • quality control of the article;
  • publication or rejection of the article.

The quality control system covers the following stages:

  • the editorial office receives the article;
  • the Editor-in-Chief carries out the initial check of the article for compliance with the general and technical requirements of the publication, the presence of plagiarism (using Grammarly's plagiarism checker);
  • in the absence of remarks, the Editor-in-Chief directs the article to the reviewer following the principle of double-blind review;
  • depending on the results of the review, the Editor-in-Chief decides to a) publish the article; b) sending the article to the author for revision according to the editor's remarks; c) rejection of the article;
  • the Editor-in-Chief informs the author about the decision with remarks on the article (if any presents);
  • if the author re-submits the article after correcting the reviewer's remarks, the Editor-in-Chief checks the completeness and quality of corrections (or, if necessary, re-submits the article to the reviewer) and decides to publish or reject the article.

The rejection of the article is final. In case of irrefutable evidence of an ethical violation by the editor or reviewer, the author may appeal to the Editorial Board Chairman.

Reviewing process

LBSHerald uses a double-blind peer-reviewing system. The reviewer does not know the author's data (name and affiliation and other data that may influence the reviewer's decision), while the author has no information about the reviewer's identity.

To ensure the efficiency and integrity of the review procedure, participants take the following steps:

1). The Editor-in-Chief checks the article for compliance with the Author Guidelines (the Editor-in-Chief does not evaluate the quality of the article at this stage);

2). The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers;

3). Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

4). The reviewer rereads the article several times.

4).1. As a result of the first reading, the reviewer forms an initial idea of ​​the article. If there are major remarks, the reviewer may recommend rejecting the article at this stage.

4).2. In the absence of major remarks during the further processing of the article, the reviewer forms a detailed point-by-point review.

In his Conclusion, the reviewer provides answers to the following questions:

  • Is the research topic entirely original?
  • Do the results of the study contribute to the development of the theory of sustainable development?
  • Are the results of the study significant?
  • Is the article presented correctly? Is the article written properly?
  • Are the results sufficiently substantiated? 
  • Are the formulated conclusions interesting enough for readers? 
  • Are there any advantages in favour of publishing the article? 
  • Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

4).3. The reviewer sends the finished review to the Editor-in-Chief with a recommendation to a) accept the article; b) make corrections to the article; c) reject the article.

4).4. If the reviewer proposes to amend the article, such a requirement should be as detailed and unambiguous as possible. The reviewer usually marks each remark as more or less significant.

4).5. The Editor-in-Chief receives the review and reports its results to the author. If there are remarks, the Editor-in-Chief transmits their content to the author in full and without changes.

4).6. The author, if necessary, makes changes to the article, as required by the review. After making changes, the author sends the article to the editor.

4).7. The Editor-in-Chief checks the completeness of the corrections made by the author. If the Editor-in-Chief has doubts or cannot establish the completeness of the remarks, the Editor-in-Chief re-submits the article to the reviewer.

4).8. If the Editor-in-Chief (or reviewer) finds that the author has corrected all comments, the Editor-in-Chief decides to publish the article.

The final decision on the publication of the issue

1. When the number of articles is sufficient to form an issue (usually 5-8 articles), the Editor-in-Chief forms a draft. The Editor-in-Chief can make adjustments that do not affect the content of the article.
2. Two weeks before the release date, the Editor-in-Chief sends a draft to the Editorial Board Chairman and members and the Publisher. The parties have one week to identify possible deficiencies.
3. In case of principled remarks, a separate article or the entire issue may be returned for revision to the Editor-in-Chief.
4. If the improvement of a separate article requires a significant amount of work, such an article may be published after improvement in the next issue. Allowing such a situation may cause reprimanding the Editor-in-Chief.
5. If the parties have no comments, the Publisher accepts the issue. The Publisher provides the publication's layout and placement on the website according to the standards and clearly on time. The Publisher's violation of standards or deadlines may cause replacement of the Publisher.