Reviewing

The manuscripts should be sent to ecsoc@hse.ru. Notification of receipt will be sent by email to the author(s) at the address provided at the time of submission.

Journal of Economic Sociology provides revision procedures for all the texts received according to international standards for academic journals. The review process is obligatory for all papers being considered under the headings: "New Texts", "Beyond the Borders", "Debut Studies" and "Professional Reviews".

Journal of Economic Sociology has a double-blind review process, i.e., each submission is reviewed independently by two anonymous experts after all identifying data about the author(s) has been suppressed. Reviewers are usually supposed to have recent publications that are relevant to the reviewed paper. The reviewers are asked to provide written reports. Reports containing suggestions for improvement are forwarded to the author(s). If the editorial board decides not to accept a manuscript, it will inform the author(s) without sending the written reports of the reviewers.

The journal endeavors to deliver a decision on publication no later than two months from the manuscript’s registration as a received submission. The author(s) will be informed about the decision by email to the address provided at the time of submission.

There are no fees taken from the authors and no honorariums given for the papers.

Reviewing procedure
1. Before the text is sent to reviewers it is checked up by the editorial staff to comply with formal requirements. If not, notification with reasoning is sent to the author.

2. If the text complies with formal requirements it’s sent to two independent reviewers. Revision is anonymous both for authors and reviewers.

3. After reading the text the reviewer files in the special form, giving marks by characteristics of the study (like conformity with the subject of economic sociology, correctness of methods of data gathering and analysis used etc.), highlighting the strong and weak points of the work and providing the final mark. The latter is treated as a decision about the publication (or refuse) of the text: perfect; good, ready to be published; can be published after correction; shouldn’t be published.

4. After getting the reviews the author has some time to revise the text after which text can be sent to reviewers once again. Besides the new version of the text the author provides the file with answers to the comments of reviewers where he/she shows how each comments was taken into consideration or why can’t it be taken into consideration.

5. The final decision about publication (or refuse) is based on the reviews but editorial staff can make a decision that differ from the marks of reviewers.

Manuscripts written by request of editorial staff are assessed by the same criteria as other articles. 

All reviews are supposed to be kept by the editoral staff for at least five years and to be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on request.