Ethical rules


These ethical rules establish the basic principle formulations, technology and procedural requirements related to accepting, reviewing and publishing manuscripts as scientific papers in “Economic Archive” journal and regulate the relations between the author/authors, editor-in-chief, Editorial board, reviewers and the publisher, guaranteeing the quality of the scientific production, the legitimacy of publications and their significance for the broad scientific community and readers of the journal.

The ethical rules are based on values, principles and generally accepted norms defining the behaviour, research and publication activities of scientists as eligible, acceptable, appropriate and complying with the scientific interest. They complement the legal regulations and internationally accepted ethical standards and rules in the field of scientific research, which prohibit the intentional and deliberate misappropriation and/or manipulation of truth, information, theses, etc., as well as the publication of unverified or unjustified allegations.

The Editorial board of “Economic Archive” journal complies with the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE) 1 when publishing and entirely shares  the position of Elsievier2 on publishing ethics, protection of copyrights and the prevention of cases of plagiarism in the process of reviewing, peer-reviewing, editing and publishing scientific production.


The publisher determines the relations between the publisher, editor-in-chief, editorial board, reviewers, authors and other parties involved in the process of contractual relations, represents and supports the policy of the journal and forms mechanisms for its application and contributes to the dissemination of information about the journal.

The publisher respects the principles of scientific ethics.


The publisher respects the right for confidentiality of information provided by participants in the process of reviewing and publishing scientific production and protects the intellectual property rights and copyrights.

The publisher cooperates with other publishers and industry associations, including on ethical issues related to tracking errors and publishing rebuttals.


The publisher supports the policy of independence and objectivity when assessing the quality and significance of manuscripts submitted for reviewing and respects the principle of non-interference in decisions taken by the editor-in-chief, the Editorial board and reviewers of the journal on acceptance or rejection for publication of a material such as an article.

Disclosure and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

Public confidence in the scientific process and authenticity of published articles depend partially on whether potential and actual conflicts of interest during the planning, execution, writing, validation, editing and publishing of scientific production have been identified, defined and transparently regulated.

A conflict of interest occurs when professional judgment concerning primary interest (e.g. significance of research, validity or correctness of results of the findings) can be influenced by secondary interest (e.g. financial income). Perception of and suggestion for conflicts of interest are just as important as the real conflicts of interest are.

Financial dependencies (providing employment, business relations with consulting firms, honoraria, patents, paid expertise, etc.) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest that might undermine the credibility, reputation and trust in the publisher, journal authors and science itself.

Other possible causes for conflicts of interest are: personal relationships and rivalries, academic competition, theoretical beliefs, etc. Authors should avoid entering into agreements with sponsors of scientific studies and projects that might impede their access to all data in the study, complicate the analysis and interpretation of these data and hamper the preparation and publication of the manuscript, no matter when, where or how they are selected.

The publisher provides assistance to the parties responsible for investigating cases of unscrupulous practices in the field of research and publication activities, assists in resolving disputes, settling violated rights and publishing amendments, clarifications and reviews/comments on fraudulent papers.


The editor-in-chief is guided by the adopted policy of the Editorial Board  in the field of research and publication activities,  taking into account the norms and requirements in relation to discrediting authors, copyright infringements and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief conducts the editorial policy of the journal by ensuring maximum transparency and anonymity of the author/authors and relevant reviewers.

The editor-in- chief specifies which manuscripts fit the profile of the journal and meet the announced requirements for submission to the reviewers. He/ She organizes the review process in a way that facilitates the objective evaluation of the paper, the expeditious editorial decision-making on the basis of expert evaluation and timely publication of high quality scientific production.

Objective evaluation

The editor-in-chief assigns a "blind" peer review to be made by two independent reviewers (double-blinded peer review) of any material submitted for publishing at the journal in order to ensure impartial examination and objective evaluation of the manuscript. He/She presents to the reviewers anonymous materials for reviewing in pdf-format after checking their authenticity via a web-based tool (software for establishing the propriety of scientific periodicals and papers –­ Plagiarism software checker iThenticate).

 Editor-in-chief informs the reviewers about the rules of reviewing and provides them with a model of a review approved by the journal. Provided that the process of reviewing has been delayed, the editor notifies the author/authors of the manuscript about that.

Publication decision

Editor-in-chief takes a decision to publish an article based on the expert evaluation made by two independent reviewers and the opinion of Editorial Board members. He/She notifies in writing the author/authors of the paper about the decision of the Editorial board.

In the process of decision-making, the editor-in-chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.


Editor-in-chief reveals confidential information about the manuscript submitted for reviewing only to the author/authors of the manuscript, the reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, in case of necessity.

Disclosure and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

Editor-in-chief regulates the process of detecting and preventing conflicts regarding violated editorial rights and interests and manages the process of circulation of information presented by the author/authors of the manuscript, reviewers, editorial board and readers of the journal. He/She demands that all parties disclose any competitive interests. In case of a detected conflict of interest, the editor-in-chief suspends the manuscript, presented in the journal, from consideration, and takes appropriate measures upon complaints of ethical character related to a manuscript or published article (notifies the author, discusses the complaint with the editorial board and publishes a rebuttal or appropriate corrections). Forcing authors to cite the journal is unacceptable.


The Editorial board of “Economic Archive” journal respects the honour and dignity of authors of manuscripts. It assists in improving the quality of the manuscript submitted for publication by scientific reviewing and stylistic editing of the material.

Equal access to publication

The Editorial board respects the principles of equal opportunities and non-discrimination. The evaluation of manuscripts is made without any prejudice against race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political beliefs of the author/ authors.

Objective evaluation

The Editorial board takes decisions whether to approve or reject the publication of a submitted manuscript, based solely on objective criteria related to the thematic relevance and significance; originality of content and design, clarity of presentation, availability of contribution, level of completion and compliance with the thematic scope of the journal.

Publication decision

The Editorial board, jointly with the editor-in-chief, holds the responsibility for decisions taken to approve or reject the manuscript submitted for publication in the journal. Decisions should be fair, impartial and beyond the control of commercial interests, should be based on objective reviewers’ evaluation of the merits of the paper and its significance to the scientific community and readers of the journal.


The Editorial board reveals confidential information concerning a manuscript presented for review, only to the author/authors, reviewers, editorial advisors, technical assistants of the journal and the publisher, if necessary.

Correspondence among the author/authors, reviewers and editor-in-chief is confidential.

Disclosure and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

Members of the Editorial board are not entitled to use unpublished papers in their own scientific study without the explicit written consent of the author. Confidential information and/or ideas obtained in the review process should be kept in secret and not be used for personal benefits.

Members of the Editorial board and reviewers have to disclose any competitive interests. Upon identifying such interests, other appropriate actions have to be taken, including withdrawal of the published paper.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The Editorial board protects the rights of third parties from unsanctioned use. In case of complaints of ethical nature, regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, the Editorial board assists the editor-in-chief in initiating and implementing appropriate measures.


All the manuscripts, deposited in the journal, go through a previously announced procedure of reviewing according to the scientific and publishing standards of the journal.

Contribution to Editorial Decision

The review of a manuscript, presented in the journal, is a confidential document intended to facilitate the editor-in-chief and the Editorial board in the process of taking a decision on the publication of an article and help the author/ authors of the manuscript improve its quality and scientific importance.

The review should be based on objective expert evaluation of the reviewers,  fair presentation of scientific facts, merits and significance of the research material. Major responsibility of the reviewers is to assess correctly and impartially the merits of a manuscript by providing an objective review of the material.

Having reviewed and evaluated the manuscript, the reviewers formulate their position and offer to the Editorial board one of the following four options:

1) Positive statement for publishing the manuscript the way it has been presented for a review;

2) Positive statement for publishing the manuscript by presenting an improved version, approved by a resolution of the reviewer, without reporting it to the Editorial board;

3) Positive statement for publishing the manuscript by presenting a revised  version approved by the reviewer and a report, containing changes, comments and recommendations written by the author to the Editorial board;

4)   Negative opinion on publishing the manuscript.

Promptness (efficiency) and correctness

Each chosen reviewer, who feels insufficiently qualified to review a manuscript on a given topic or believes that he/she cannot supply a prompt evaluation, should notify the editor-in-chief and declare a refusal for participation in the review process.


Each manuscript submitted for peer review has the status of a confidential document that should not be presented to or discussed with third parties except for the editor-in-chief or persons authorized by him/her. 

Standards of Objectivity

The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript objectively and impartially, and not be influenced by relations with other persons or prejudices against formulations presented in the material. The reviewers should clearly state their opinion and support it with arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

The reviewers have to monitor the correctness and accuracy of citations in reference to primary sources. In case of incorrect citation or noticeable duplication of any part of the material with an already published article, they are obliged to confidentially inform the editor-in-chief of the journal in written form.

Disclosure and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

It is unacceptable that the reviewer uses unpublished materials mentioned in a submitted manuscript as their own scientific research without the explicit written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained in the process of reviewing must be kept confidential and not be used for personal benefits. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which there is conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relations or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the publications. Editor-in-chief and the Editorial board members who are involved in making decisions on publication of materials should declare their interests. They should not be involved in the process of reviewing and making editorial decisions on their own scientific papers.


Standards for publication

The authors present a manuscript in accordance with the thematic scope of the journal and published requirements of the Editorial Board ( regarding the number of pages, mandatory requisites, structure and technical parameters for the layout of the paper. The manuscript should contain summarized content and results achieved, based on substantiated actuality of the content matter and formulated guidelines; the research purposes in the introductory part;  should present the views of the author in a logically clear and justified way as well as the views supported by the author, in compliance with the scientific and problem-oriented approach and the use of appropriate methodologies and methodological tools; include analytical and summarizing concluding part with clearly identifiable contributions of the author. The correct and precise statement of the author's ideas should be enhanced by references to other literary and/or Internet sources, and at the same time, factology and presentation of essential analytical aspects should allow proper citation of the material by others. When citing works and/or fragments of text written by other authors, they should be accompanied by appropriate references to already published works. Deliberate and intentional use of inaccurate statements and reference to manipulatively interpreted scientific facts and theses is perceived as unacceptable and unethical behaviour.