Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

‘R-Economy’ aims to publish high quality research in regional economics with a special focus on how regions, and especially Russian regions, relate to and function within international socio-economic processes. We emphatically invite economists who write from and on BRICS countries.

‘R’ in the title refers to its three major foci – Region (regional development), Rating (comparative research) and Regulation (state policy).

The journal’s topics of preference include the following:

  • regional differentiation and polarization;
  • approaches to measuring regional development and differentiation and the corresponding statistical indicators;
  • national and international ratings of regional development;
  • methods of modeling and forecasting processes of regional differentiation and polarization;
  • equalization policy in socio-economic regional development


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to R-economy are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review. This type of scientific expertise implies that neither the Reviewer nor the Author is aware of each other’s identity.

Peer-review order
1. Submitted manuscripts are initially checked against minimal acceptance criteria to ensure their compliance with the Journal’s remit and the formal requirements specified in the Author Guidelines.
2. The Editor-in-Chief has the right to reject manuscripts prior to the-peer review stage in cases of their low research quality, about which the Author(s) are notified within the period of 2 weeks.
3. The manuscripts meeting the Journal’s minimal acceptance criteria and formal requirements are forwarded for peer review by independent specialists having professional competencies and expertise in the corresponding fields of economics.
4. The Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Secretary selects Reviewers for each manuscript.
5. Peer review is normally completed within the period of 1 month. Upon the request of Reviewers or when additional evaluation is needed, the peer-review period can be extended. The Author(s) are notified about the extension of the peer-review period.
6. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts forwarded for review are the private property of the Author(s) and include confidential information.
7. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the peer-review process.
8. Reviewers should decline a review request in cases where conflicts of interest are present that can affect the perception and interpretation of the materials under review.
9. Upon completing the assessment of the manuscript, the Reviewer makes one of the following recommendations:
• accept the manuscript for publication in its present form;
• request the Author(s) to revise their manuscript following the Reviewer's comments;
• reject the manuscript outright.
10. In cases where Reviewers have recommended revisions, the Journal requests the Author(s) either to introduce the necessary revisions or present reasoned arguments as to why the revisions should not be introduced. The Author(s) are requested to make the required changes within a period of no longer than 2 months from the reception of the relevant email from the editorial office. Revised articles are sent out for additional review.
11. Authors are requested to notify the Editors if they refuse to revise a manuscript following the Reviewer’s comments, thus withdrawing the manuscript from the publication queue. Revised manuscripts not re-submitted after 2 months of receiving the initial review will be treated as entirely new submissions. In such cases, the Authors will be forwarded a corresponding notification on the removal of their manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
12. In cases of disagreement with the opinion of the Reviewer, the corresponding Author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial Board of the Journal.
13. In cases where the Author(s) and the Reviewer(s) encounter insoluble contradictions regarding the content of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief shall forward the manuscript for additional review. The final decision regarding any conflicts arising during the peer review process will be taken exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.
14. Positive reviews do not guarantee acceptance for publication, since the final decision on the publication rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.
15. Upon the decision to accept a manuscript for publication, its Author(s) will be notified of the scheduled period of publication. In cases where a decision is taken to reject a manuscript, its Author(s) will be notified by email along with a reasoned explanation.
16. Peer review is carried out on a pro bono basis.
17. Original reviews remain deposited in the in the Editorial Office for three years.

Peer-review form
The review should contain a qualified assessment of the manuscript. Special attention should be paid to the following aspects:
• relevance of the topic, scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the manuscript;
• originality of the materials, absence of unattributed borrowings and account of Author's previously published works;
• correspondence of the applied methodology, obtained results and formulated recommendations with contemporary scientific achievements;
• quality of the manuscript design: structure, style, terminology; volume of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
• quality of tables and illustrative materials and their relevance to the manuscript subject;
• credibility of the presented information; strength of arguments, hypotheses and conclusions;
• presence or absence of inaccuracies and errors.


Publication Frequency

The journal publishes four issues per year.

All manuscripts are to be peer-reviewed.


Open Access Policy

Our goal is to create an open-access on-line journal and to ensure the high quality of publications that would enhance the journal’s visibility in the international academic community. In line with the Budapest Open-Access Initiative, the journal seeks to make research freely accessible to everybody, providing Internet users with direct links to full texts of the articles to read, download, copy, distribute, print, and browse through. The texts can be also crawled and indexed, passed as data to software, or used for any other lawful purposes, without any financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.


Publication Fees

There are no charges to submit and publish a paper. Authors will not be asked to contribute to the costs of processing, formatting, or storing publications.


Code of Ethics

Ethical Obligations of Authors

Authors are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines; infractions may result in the application of sanctions by the editor(s), including but not limited to the suspension or revocation of publishing privileges.

1. An author’s central obligation is to present an accurate and complete account of the research performed, absolutely avoiding deception, including the data collected or used, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Data are defined as information collected or used in generating research conclusions. The research report and the data collected should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit a trained professional to reproduce the experimental observations.

2. When requested, the authors should make every reasonable effort to provide data and methods to reviewers. Authors are encouraged to submit their data to a public database, where available.

3. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work.

4. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A researcher who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study. Fragmentation consumes journal space excessively and unduly complicates literature searches. The convenience of readers is served if reports on related studies are published in the same journal, or in a small number of journals.

5. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.

6. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a ‘communication’ or ‘letter’) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.

7. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.

8. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of another researcher. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.

9. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an ‘Acknowledgments’ section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting the date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.

10. Images should be free from misleading manipulation. When images are included in an account of research performed or in the data collection as part of the research, an accurate description of how the images were generated and produced should be provided.

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1. A reviewer should disclose real or perceived conflict of interests to the editor before agreeing to write a review. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, personal friend, employer or employee, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had a past or on-going scientific controversy, or situations where the reviewer could stand to gain economically by publication or rejection of the manuscript. The editor will decide if the conflict is severe enough to prevent the reviewer from writing a fair, objective review.

2. A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if she/he feels technically unqualified, if a timely review can’t be done, or if the manuscript is from a scientific competitor with whom the reviewer has had an acrimonious professional relationship, or a conflict of interest as defined above.

3. Reviewers should be encouraged, but not required, to sign reviews. The Editor will preserve anonymity of reviewers should a reviewer elect to remain anonymous.

4. Reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential.

5. Reviewers should ask the editor for permission to discuss the paper with others for specific advice, giving names and reasons for such consultation.

6. Reviewers should not pass the manuscript to another to carry out the review without permission from the editor.

7. Reviewers should not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of the manuscript in their own work until that manuscript is in press or published unless the author has given permission to do so.

8. Reviewers should clearly support and justify the basis for their review analysis.

9. Reviewers should alert the editor to similar manuscripts published or under consideration for publication elsewhere in the event they are aware of such. However, it is the responsibility of the editor, not the reviewer, to decide on the proper course of action once so informed.

Ethical Obligations of Editors

Plagiarism Detection

Plagiarism is not acceptable in the journal. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Authors should not engage in plagiarism — verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another’s work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication) — unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgement of the source. If one or two identical sentences previously published by an author appear in a subsequent work by the same author, this is unlikely to be regarded as duplicate publication. Material quoted verbatim from the author’s previously published work must be placed in quotation marks. In contrast, it is unacceptable for an author to include significant verbatim or near-verbatim portions of his/her own work, or to depict his/her previously published results or methodology as new, without acknowledging the source.

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author must reveal to the editor and to the readers of the journal any potential and/or relevant competing financial or other interest (of all authors) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding of the research reported must be clearly stated at the time of manuscript submission and will be included in the published article. The corresponding author must advise the editor at the time of submission either that there is no conflict of interest to declare, or should disclose potential conflicts of interest that will be acknowledged in the published article.

Changes to authorship

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal editor. To request such a change, the editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in author list and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. While the editor considers the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online issue, any requests approved by the editor will result in a corrigendum.

Retraction of publication

If editors discover false data, plagiarism, multiple submissions or other malicious violations, the article may be withdrawn from publication during the period of preparation of the issue. If the issue with such article has already been published, relevant information should be printed in the journal, and information on the retraction of the article should be sent to international citation bases. Also retracted article should be excluded from the all the databases. The decision about retraction and the responsibility associated with this decision rests entirely with the editor of the journal.


Indexing & Archiving

All published articles are available for free in the website and are indexed in Russian Science Citation Index (https://elibrary.ru). R-Economy is also included into the list of journals approved by the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK list)


About the Publishing House

R-Economy is published by Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education “Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin”.

Contacts: Ural Federal University Publishing House, 620000, Russia, Ekaterinburg, 4 Turgeneva st., room 106. Tel. +7(343)371-54-48, e-mail: a.v.podchinenov@urfu.ru (Alexey Vasil'evich Podchinenov, deputy director).