General Requirements for the Paper

Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial board as electronic documents in the .doc or .docx formats (by a single file). Apart from the main text, the file should include the following mandatory information in the Russian and English languages:

• name of the manuscript;
• surname, first name and patronymic of the the author(s);
• academic degree; academic title, honorary title (if available);
• job title, affiliation;
• contact information that can be publicly available (e-mail, city, country of residence for every author) as well as contact telephones for communication with the editorial board of the journal;
• extended abstract (not less than 100-250 words) revealing the relevance of the topic, methods, findings and prospects of the research;
• keywords and word combinations (5-10)

Abstract and Keyword Requirements

The abstract is provided in the Russian and English languages.

The abstract should be at least 100-250 words in size.

Manuscripts are accepted for publication only if abstracts reflect the content with the maximum accuracy (see Appendix 1). The abstract should contain the main conclusions of the reported research and the results thereof.

The abstract should be structured according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle as follows:

• Introduction - relevance, goals and objectives of the research.
• Methods ‑ description of when, where and how the research was carried out; what information, methods were used; who was included into the test group.
• Results ‑ main conclusions (particulars), research findings.
• Discussion ‑ discussing the extent to which the result obtained is consistent with findings of other scientists; research prospects, research potential leading to new insight, challenges.

Keywords, word combinations are used for locating an article in electronic databases - they should be concise and reflect the content and specifics of the manuscript.

The abstract and keywords translated by software tools are not accepted; a manuscript containing them is rejected.

Manuscript Text Requirements

The text (including footnotes and comments) should be typed with the Times New Roman font at 1.5 interval; justification without hyphenation; 1.25 cm paragraph indention. If the text is typed electronically the following point size should be used: 14 - for the main text; 10 - for footnotes and comments.

Figures, tables and drawings should be numbered and input into a file in the character editor or the Word editor; they should be referenced in the text of the article, e.g. (Fig. 4), (Table 1).

Scanned versions of pictures, tables and formulae are not allowed.

Colored images (graphs, diagrams) are not allowed if colors are not discernible in the B/W print mode.

All abbreviations and acronyms should be deciphered when first used in the text.

Be sure to specify the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) code.

Footnotes and Reference List Requirements

All references to articles and monographs are given in square brackets with indication of the source number given in the reference list and the page of the citation, e.g. [4, p. 151].

References to official documents, statutory instruments, electronic resources should be placed at the page footer, and such sources are not included into the reference list.

It is mandatory that all refreneces to official documents, statutory instruments and alike include the date, number, full name and official source of publication.

References to electronic resources are made as set out in Section 10 of GOST R 7.0.5-2008 specifying the URL for identifying the e-mail address and the accessed date.

The post-article reference list (References) is made according to the GOST R 7.0.5-2008 requirements (see examples in Appendix 2). In this list only the size of a referenced publication is specified (e.g. if an independent publication: 350 pages; newspaper/journal article/collection: - pp. 12-17).

English-language references are executed with account for strandards of international citation data bases (see Appendix 2). The US Library of Congress (LC) Classification system is to be used for transliteration (see http://translit.ru).

The author assumes full responsibility for accuracy of citations, names, proper names, digital data as well as for certainty of facts and events described in the manuscript.

Eticheskie standarty dlya redaktorov

Prinyatie resheniy. Glavnyy redaktor zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» neset okonchatel'nuyu otvetstvennost' pri prinyatii resheniya o publikacii predstavlennoy na rassmotrenie rukopisi, rukovodstvuyas' pri etom politikoy zhurnala s uchetom vseh yuridicheskih trebovaniy, deystvuyuschih na moment publikacii, v otnoshenii klevety, narusheniya avtorskogo prava i plagiata. Pri prinyatii resheniya o publikacii glavnyy redaktor mozhet konsul'tirovat'sya s zamestitelem glavnogo redaktora, chlenami redakcionnoy kollegii, a takzhe s recenzentami.

Nediskriminacionnyy podhod. Redaktory ocenivayut intellektual'noe soderzhanie rukopisey vne zavisimosti ot rasy, cveta kozhi, pola, seksual'noy orientacii, religioznyh verovaniy, etnicheskogo proishozhdeniya, grazhdanstva ili politicheskogo mirovozzreniya avtora (avtorov). Oni ne dolzhny razglashat' informaciyu o predstavlennoy na rassmotrenie rukopisi tret'im licam za isklyucheniem avtora, recenzentov i potencial'nyh recenzentov, a takzhe v otdel'nyh sluchayah chlenov redakcionnoy kollegii zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» i rukovoditeley, esli eto neobhodimo. Pomimo etogo redaktory prilagayut vse usiliya k tomu, chtoby obespechit' chistotu processa «slepogo» recenzirovaniya, pri kotorom lichnost' avtora neizvestna recenzentu i naoborot.

Ocenka moral'nogo vreda. Pri ocenke rukopisi dlya publikacii pomimo ucheta standartnyh kriteriev v plane tochnosti rukopisi, kachestva ee predstavleniya i ee vklada v bazu znaniy chelovechestva redaktory takzhe dolzhny iskat' svidetel'stva togo, chto moral'nyy uscherb pri provedenii opisyvaemogo issledovaniya sveden k minimumu. Neobhodimo ustanovit', prevyshayut li dostoinstva dannogo konkretnogo issledovaniya vozmozhnyy uscherb. Poskol'ku zhurnal «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» privetstvuet postuplenie rukopisi iz lyuboy strany, neobhodimo ponimat', chto zakony i pravovye normy, kasayuschiesya etiki issledovaniy i odobreniya eticheskih norm, vo vsem mire razlichny. Pri etom redaktory mogut potrebovat' u avtorov raz'yasneniy v etom voprose i poprosit' ih predostavit' pis'mo ot komiteta po etike sootvetstvuyuschego vedomstva ili soveta, utverdivshego provedenie issledovaniya.

Eticheskie standarty dlya recenzentov

Usloviya sotrudnichestva. Recenzenty zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» vypolnyayut rabotu na dobrovol'noy osnove. Poskol'ku bόl'shaya chast' ekspertov yavlyayutsya shtatnymi rabotnikami svoih organizaciy, podrazumevaetsya, chto vypolnenie imi raboty po recenzirovaniyu ne schitaetsya ih prioritetnoy zadachey. Recenzenty vprave po svoemu usmotreniyu otklonit' predlozhenie o provedenii nauchnoy ekspertizy konkretnyh rukopisey, esli, naprimer, ih zagruzhennost' na rabote i (ili) drugie obyazatel'stva ne pozvolyayut im podgotovit' recenziyu vovremya, i vypolnit' etu rabotu v dostupnye im sroki. Oni takzhe ne dolzhny prinimat' zadanie na recenzirovanie rukopisi, esli, po ih mneniyu, ne obladayut dlya etogo dostatochnoy kvalifikaciey.

Sroki recenzirovaniya. Recenzenty, prinyavshie zadanie na recenzirovanie rukopisi, kak pravilo, predostavlyayut recenziyu v techenie mesyaca. Vmeste s tem oni dolzhny otkazat'sya ot vypolneniya zadaniya na lyuboy stadii, esli im stanet yasno, chto oni ne obladayut dostatochnoy kvalifikaciey dlya provedeniya nauchnoy ekspertizy ili zhe v hode ee provedeniya mogut vstupit' v potencial'nyy konflikt interesov (naprimer, vsledstvie otnosheniy i svyazey v usloviyah konkurencii, sotrudnichestva ili inache, s lyubymi avtorami, uchrezhdeniyami ili firmami, imeyuschimi otnoshenie k rukopisi).

Politika konfidencial'nosti. Informaciya konfidencial'nogo haraktera ili idei, poluchennye v hode provedeniya nauchnoy ekspertizy, ne podlezhat razglasheniyu i ispol'zovaniyu v lichnyh celyah. Lyubye rukopisi, prinyatye na recenzirovanie, dolzhny rassmatrivat'sya kak konfidencial'nye dokumenty, i oznakomlenie s nimi ili obsuzhdenie ih s drugimi licami dolzhno proizvodit'sya isklyuchitel'no s razresheniya glavnogo redaktora zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta».

Ob'ektivnost'. Pri provedenii ekspertizy recenzenty dolzhny proyavlyat' maksimal'nuyu ob'ektivnost', vozderzhivayas' ot personal'noy kritiki v adres avtora (avtorov). Neobhodimo chetko vyrazhat' svoi vzglyady, ob'yasnyaya i obosnovyvaya vse sdelannye rekomendacii. Recenzenty dolzhny prilagat' vse usiliya k tomu, chtoby dat' podrobnuyu i konstruktivnuyu ocenku, sposobnuyu pomoch' avtoram v usovershenstvovanii ih raboty, dazhe esli rukopis', po ih mneniyu, ne podlezhit publikacii.

Ocenka rukopisi. V svoih recenziyah recenzenty dolzhny ukazyvat' znachimye publikacii, ne citirovannye avtorami, ravno kak i sluchai otsutstviya nadlezhaschih ssylok na istochniki. Oni dolzhny privlekat' vnimanie vypuskayuschego redaktora k osnovnym sluchayam shodstva mezhdu rukopis'yu, predstavlennoy k rassmotreniyu, i drugimi izvestnymi im opublikovannymi materialami i vyrazhat' svoe mnenie v otnoshenii priemlemosti issledovaniya, sostavlyayuschego predmet rukopisi, s tochki zreniya etiki.

Publishing procedure

Manuscripts are considered for publication only if they have not been published elsewhwre, fall within the topics and policies of the journal and meet the scientific quality criteria.

Manuscripts must be up-to-date, significant from the scientific and practical points of view, have a clear-cut compositional structure (problem statement, solutions, conclusions and proposals).

Authors without an academic degree as well as post-graduates and applicants for a degree should submit a review containing a recommendation to publish the manuscript (a scanned copy).

Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial board as electronic documents in the .doc or .docx formats (by a single file) by e-mail gum-nauki@yandex.ru.

By providing his (her) personal information the author automatically consents to its processing and storage.

The maximum size of the manuscript is one (1) author's sheet (40,000 characters including blanks and footnotes).

Plagiarism is forbidden. All manuscripts submitted are subject to testing on the Antiplagiarism system.

Manuscripts received by the editors and article reviews are not returned to the authors.

The Editorial Board of the Journal reserves the right to shorten and edit manuscrips received (notifying the authors thereof) as well as to return them to the authors should any of the above terms be breached.

We welcome you to cooperation and kindly ask you to note that every author is to sign a license agreement.

Manuscript Review Guidelines

1. The purpose of consideration and review of manuscripts is to ensure high quality of scientific journals issued by the Financial University as well as promotion of advanced research through materials assessment by qualified experts.

2. Preliminary Evaluation of Manuscripts

2.1. Manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals of the Financial University are received by the responsible editor of a respective scientific journal who performs their preliminary evaluation.

2.2. The preliminary evaluation is to make sure the author observes the publication terms and conditions approved by the editor-in-chief of a respective scientific journal and published at the official site of the Financial University.

2.3. In case of non-observance by the author of the publication terms and conditions stipulated in i.2.2 of this Regulation the manuscript is rejected and the author is notified thereof.

2.4. Manuscrips that passed the preliminary selection are forwarded for reviewing.

2.5. In extraordinary circumstances (changes in legislation, event of public interest, etc.) a manuscript may be published without reviewing based on the preliminary evaluation results.

3. Description and Organization of a Reviewing Process

3.1. Reviewing is performed by members of the editorial boards of journals or specially involved experts.

3.2. A manuscript should be reviewed within thirty (30) working days after its receipt by the reviewer.

3.3. Reviewers shall not make copies of manuscripts for their own needs or give a portion of a manuscript to a third person unless permission is granted by the editorial board.

3.4. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript, its unbiased well-reasoned assessment followed by a substantiated conclusion on its publication.

3.5. The main purpose of reviewing is to provide an in-depth assessment of the manuscript quality according to the following criteria:

• the name of the manuscript should reflect its contents;
• general analysis of research level, novelty and relevance of the topic, terminology;
• justified selection of tables, illustrative materials included into the manuscript, their compliance with the subject of the topic set forth therein;
• consistency of methods, recommentations and results of the reported research with modern achievements in science and practices.
• reliability of facts provided in the research;
• completeness of the subject presentation; clear-cut conclusions;
• the language and style of the presentation;
• the lack of weak points, flaws as well as inaccuracies and errors made by the author;
• use of supporting arguments in the presentation and conclusions including references to literature and other information sources cited in the manuscript;

3.6. Based on the foregoing analysis, the reviewer makes a conclusion whether the manuscript is worth publishing and provides (if needed) recommentations on, for instance, whether the manuscript should be supplemented or the results of the research clarified, etc.

4. Review Results

4.1. The review results should be provided in writing.

4.2. The review may be written in a free form in accordance with the requirements of ii. 3.5, 3.6 of this Regulation.

4.3. The signature on the review, in the case of peer review, should be certified at the reviewer's place of employment.

4.4. The peer review is perfomed as a process of confidential nature; the review is provided to the author of the manuscript anonymously without the reviewer's name, position, affiliation and signature.

4.5. On receiving a positive review, the editorial board informs the author that the manuscript is accepted for publication specifying the time of publication.

4.6. In case of a negative review the editorial board reserves the right not to publish the manuscript or to send it back for revision and another review.

4.7. Originals of reviews are to be kept at the editorial office of the journal for three (3) years and sent, if required, to the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles (VAK) of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.

4.8. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Materials that received a negative assessment of the reviewer are not published and not returned. Manuscripts not accepted for publication are not kept by the editors.

General Requirements for the Paper

Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial board as electronic documents in the .doc or .docx formats (by a single file). Apart from the main text, the file should include the following mandatory information in the Russian and English languages:

• name of the manuscript;
• surname, first name and patronymic of the the author(s);
• academic degree; academic title, honorary title (if available);
• job title, affiliation;
• contact information that can be publicly available (e-mail, city, country of residence for every author) as well as contact telephones for communication with the editorial board of the journal;
• extended abstract (not less than 100-250 words) revealing the relevance of the topic, methods, findings and prospects of the research;
• keywords and word combinations (5-10)

Abstract and Keyword Requirements

The abstract is provided in the Russian and English languages.

The abstract should be at least 100-250 words in size.

Manuscripts are accepted for publication only if abstracts reflect the content with the maximum accuracy (see Appendix 1). The abstract should contain the main conclusions of the reported research and the results thereof.

The abstract should be structured according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle as follows:

• Introduction - relevance, goals and objectives of the research.
• Methods ‑ description of when, where and how the research was carried out; what information, methods were used; who was included into the test group.
• Results ‑ main conclusions (particulars), research findings.
• Discussion ‑ discussing the extent to which the result obtained is consistent with findings of other scientists; research prospects, research potential leading to new insight, challenges.

Keywords, word combinations are used for locating an article in electronic databases - they should be concise and reflect the content and specifics of the manuscript.

The abstract and keywords translated by software tools are not accepted; a manuscript containing them is rejected.

Manuscript Text Requirements

The text (including footnotes and comments) should be typed with the Times New Roman font at 1.5 interval; justification without hyphenation; 1.25 cm paragraph indention. If the text is typed electronically the following point size should be used: 14 - for the main text; 10 - for footnotes and comments.

Figures, tables and drawings should be numbered and input into a file in the character editor or the Word editor; they should be referenced in the text of the article, e.g. (Fig. 4), (Table 1).

Scanned versions of pictures, tables and formulae are not allowed.

Colored images (graphs, diagrams) are not allowed if colors are not discernible in the B/W print mode.

All abbreviations and acronyms should be deciphered when first used in the text.

Be sure to specify the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) code.

Footnotes and Reference List Requirements

All references to articles and monographs are given in square brackets with indication of the source number given in the reference list and the page of the citation, e.g. [4, p. 151].

References to official documents, statutory instruments, electronic resources should be placed at the page footer, and such sources are not included into the reference list.

It is mandatory that all refreneces to official documents, statutory instruments and alike include the date, number, full name and official source of publication.

References to electronic resources are made as set out in Section 10 of GOST R 7.0.5-2008 specifying the URL for identifying the e-mail address and the accessed date.

The post-article reference list (References) is made according to the GOST R 7.0.5-2008 requirements (see examples in Appendix 2). In this list only the size of a referenced publication is specified (e.g. if an independent publication: 350 pages; newspaper/journal article/collection: - pp. 12-17).

English-language references are executed with account for strandards of international citation data bases (see Appendix 2). The US Library of Congress (LC) Classification system is to be used for transliteration (see http://translit.ru).

The author assumes full responsibility for accuracy of citations, names, proper names, digital data as well as for certainty of facts and events described in the manuscript.

Eticheskie standarty dlya redaktorov

Prinyatie resheniy. Glavnyy redaktor zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» neset okonchatel'nuyu otvetstvennost' pri prinyatii resheniya o publikacii predstavlennoy na rassmotrenie rukopisi, rukovodstvuyas' pri etom politikoy zhurnala s uchetom vseh yuridicheskih trebovaniy, deystvuyuschih na moment publikacii, v otnoshenii klevety, narusheniya avtorskogo prava i plagiata. Pri prinyatii resheniya o publikacii glavnyy redaktor mozhet konsul'tirovat'sya s zamestitelem glavnogo redaktora, chlenami redakcionnoy kollegii, a takzhe s recenzentami.

Nediskriminacionnyy podhod. Redaktory ocenivayut intellektual'noe soderzhanie rukopisey vne zavisimosti ot rasy, cveta kozhi, pola, seksual'noy orientacii, religioznyh verovaniy, etnicheskogo proishozhdeniya, grazhdanstva ili politicheskogo mirovozzreniya avtora (avtorov). Oni ne dolzhny razglashat' informaciyu o predstavlennoy na rassmotrenie rukopisi tret'im licam za isklyucheniem avtora, recenzentov i potencial'nyh recenzentov, a takzhe v otdel'nyh sluchayah chlenov redakcionnoy kollegii zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» i rukovoditeley, esli eto neobhodimo. Pomimo etogo redaktory prilagayut vse usiliya k tomu, chtoby obespechit' chistotu processa «slepogo» recenzirovaniya, pri kotorom lichnost' avtora neizvestna recenzentu i naoborot.

Ocenka moral'nogo vreda. Pri ocenke rukopisi dlya publikacii pomimo ucheta standartnyh kriteriev v plane tochnosti rukopisi, kachestva ee predstavleniya i ee vklada v bazu znaniy chelovechestva redaktory takzhe dolzhny iskat' svidetel'stva togo, chto moral'nyy uscherb pri provedenii opisyvaemogo issledovaniya sveden k minimumu. Neobhodimo ustanovit', prevyshayut li dostoinstva dannogo konkretnogo issledovaniya vozmozhnyy uscherb. Poskol'ku zhurnal «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» privetstvuet postuplenie rukopisi iz lyuboy strany, neobhodimo ponimat', chto zakony i pravovye normy, kasayuschiesya etiki issledovaniy i odobreniya eticheskih norm, vo vsem mire razlichny. Pri etom redaktory mogut potrebovat' u avtorov raz'yasneniy v etom voprose i poprosit' ih predostavit' pis'mo ot komiteta po etike sootvetstvuyuschego vedomstva ili soveta, utverdivshego provedenie issledovaniya.

Eticheskie standarty dlya recenzentov

Usloviya sotrudnichestva. Recenzenty zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta» vypolnyayut rabotu na dobrovol'noy osnove. Poskol'ku bόl'shaya chast' ekspertov yavlyayutsya shtatnymi rabotnikami svoih organizaciy, podrazumevaetsya, chto vypolnenie imi raboty po recenzirovaniyu ne schitaetsya ih prioritetnoy zadachey. Recenzenty vprave po svoemu usmotreniyu otklonit' predlozhenie o provedenii nauchnoy ekspertizy konkretnyh rukopisey, esli, naprimer, ih zagruzhennost' na rabote i (ili) drugie obyazatel'stva ne pozvolyayut im podgotovit' recenziyu vovremya, i vypolnit' etu rabotu v dostupnye im sroki. Oni takzhe ne dolzhny prinimat' zadanie na recenzirovanie rukopisi, esli, po ih mneniyu, ne obladayut dlya etogo dostatochnoy kvalifikaciey.

Sroki recenzirovaniya. Recenzenty, prinyavshie zadanie na recenzirovanie rukopisi, kak pravilo, predostavlyayut recenziyu v techenie mesyaca. Vmeste s tem oni dolzhny otkazat'sya ot vypolneniya zadaniya na lyuboy stadii, esli im stanet yasno, chto oni ne obladayut dostatochnoy kvalifikaciey dlya provedeniya nauchnoy ekspertizy ili zhe v hode ee provedeniya mogut vstupit' v potencial'nyy konflikt interesov (naprimer, vsledstvie otnosheniy i svyazey v usloviyah konkurencii, sotrudnichestva ili inache, s lyubymi avtorami, uchrezhdeniyami ili firmami, imeyuschimi otnoshenie k rukopisi).

Politika konfidencial'nosti. Informaciya konfidencial'nogo haraktera ili idei, poluchennye v hode provedeniya nauchnoy ekspertizy, ne podlezhat razglasheniyu i ispol'zovaniyu v lichnyh celyah. Lyubye rukopisi, prinyatye na recenzirovanie, dolzhny rassmatrivat'sya kak konfidencial'nye dokumenty, i oznakomlenie s nimi ili obsuzhdenie ih s drugimi licami dolzhno proizvodit'sya isklyuchitel'no s razresheniya glavnogo redaktora zhurnala «Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta».

Ob'ektivnost'. Pri provedenii ekspertizy recenzenty dolzhny proyavlyat' maksimal'nuyu ob'ektivnost', vozderzhivayas' ot personal'noy kritiki v adres avtora (avtorov). Neobhodimo chetko vyrazhat' svoi vzglyady, ob'yasnyaya i obosnovyvaya vse sdelannye rekomendacii. Recenzenty dolzhny prilagat' vse usiliya k tomu, chtoby dat' podrobnuyu i konstruktivnuyu ocenku, sposobnuyu pomoch' avtoram v usovershenstvovanii ih raboty, dazhe esli rukopis', po ih mneniyu, ne podlezhit publikacii.

Ocenka rukopisi. V svoih recenziyah recenzenty dolzhny ukazyvat' znachimye publikacii, ne citirovannye avtorami, ravno kak i sluchai otsutstviya nadlezhaschih ssylok na istochniki. Oni dolzhny privlekat' vnimanie vypuskayuschego redaktora k osnovnym sluchayam shodstva mezhdu rukopis'yu, predstavlennoy k rassmotreniyu, i drugimi izvestnymi im opublikovannymi materialami i vyrazhat' svoe mnenie v otnoshenii priemlemosti issledovaniya, sostavlyayuschego predmet rukopisi, s tochki zreniya etiki.

Publishing procedure

Manuscripts are considered for publication only if they have not been published elsewhwre, fall within the topics and policies of the journal and meet the scientific quality criteria.

Manuscripts must be up-to-date, significant from the scientific and practical points of view, have a clear-cut compositional structure (problem statement, solutions, conclusions and proposals).

Authors without an academic degree as well as post-graduates and applicants for a degree should submit a review containing a recommendation to publish the manuscript (a scanned copy).

Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial board as electronic documents in the .doc or .docx formats (by a single file) by e-mail gum-nauki@yandex.ru.

By providing his (her) personal information the author automatically consents to its processing and storage.

The maximum size of the manuscript is one (1) author's sheet (40,000 characters including blanks and footnotes).

Plagiarism is forbidden. All manuscripts submitted are subject to testing on the Antiplagiarism system.

Manuscripts received by the editors and article reviews are not returned to the authors.

The Editorial Board of the Journal reserves the right to shorten and edit manuscrips received (notifying the authors thereof) as well as to return them to the authors should any of the above terms be breached.

We welcome you to cooperation and kindly ask you to note that every author is to sign a license agreement.

Manuscript Review Guidelines

1. The purpose of consideration and review of manuscripts is to ensure high quality of scientific journals issued by the Financial University as well as promotion of advanced research through materials assessment by qualified experts.

2. Preliminary Evaluation of Manuscripts

2.1. Manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals of the Financial University are received by the responsible editor of a respective scientific journal who performs their preliminary evaluation.

2.2. The preliminary evaluation is to make sure the author observes the publication terms and conditions approved by the editor-in-chief of a respective scientific journal and published at the official site of the Financial University.

2.3. In case of non-observance by the author of the publication terms and conditions stipulated in i.2.2 of this Regulation the manuscript is rejected and the author is notified thereof.

2.4. Manuscrips that passed the preliminary selection are forwarded for reviewing.

2.5. In extraordinary circumstances (changes in legislation, event of public interest, etc.) a manuscript may be published without reviewing based on the preliminary evaluation results.

3. Description and Organization of a Reviewing Process

3.1. Reviewing is performed by members of the editorial boards of journals or specially involved experts.

3.2. A manuscript should be reviewed within thirty (30) working days after its receipt by the reviewer.

3.3. Reviewers shall not make copies of manuscripts for their own needs or give a portion of a manuscript to a third person unless permission is granted by the editorial board.

3.4. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript, its unbiased well-reasoned assessment followed by a substantiated conclusion on its publication.

3.5. The main purpose of reviewing is to provide an in-depth assessment of the manuscript quality according to the following criteria:

• the name of the manuscript should reflect its contents;
• general analysis of research level, novelty and relevance of the topic, terminology;
• justified selection of tables, illustrative materials included into the manuscript, their compliance with the subject of the topic set forth therein;
• consistency of methods, recommentations and results of the reported research with modern achievements in science and practices.
• reliability of facts provided in the research;
• completeness of the subject presentation; clear-cut conclusions;
• the language and style of the presentation;
• the lack of weak points, flaws as well as inaccuracies and errors made by the author;
• use of supporting arguments in the presentation and conclusions including references to literature and other information sources cited in the manuscript;

3.6. Based on the foregoing analysis, the reviewer makes a conclusion whether the manuscript is worth publishing and provides (if needed) recommentations on, for instance, whether the manuscript should be supplemented or the results of the research clarified, etc.

4. Review Results

4.1. The review results should be provided in writing.

4.2. The review may be written in a free form in accordance with the requirements of ii. 3.5, 3.6 of this Regulation.

4.3. The signature on the review, in the case of peer review, should be certified at the reviewer's place of employment.

4.4. The peer review is perfomed as a process of confidential nature; the review is provided to the author of the manuscript anonymously without the reviewer's name, position, affiliation and signature.

4.5. On receiving a positive review, the editorial board informs the author that the manuscript is accepted for publication specifying the time of publication.

4.6. In case of a negative review the editorial board reserves the right not to publish the manuscript or to send it back for revision and another review.

4.7. Originals of reviews are to be kept at the editorial office of the journal for three (3) years and sent, if required, to the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles (VAK) of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.

4.8. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Materials that received a negative assessment of the reviewer are not published and not returned. Manuscripts not accepted for publication are not kept by the editors.

Akinin Igor

Aleksandrova Aleksandra

Alyeksyeyev Syergyey

Alikperova Natalya

Arkhangelskaya Lyubov Yur'evna Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
candidate of economic sciences

docent

ORCID:0000-0002-6861-5357

Balandina Lolita

Belgarokova Natalya

Blinov Andryey

Vasileva Ekaterina

Vorontsov Sergey

Gavrilova Yuliya

Galas Marina Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Institut problem effektivnogo gosudarstva i grazhdanskogo obschestva Departamenta politologii, glavnyy nauchnyy sotrudnik)
doctor of historical sciences

Ganina Elena

Golichev Vladimir

Gordyakova Olga

Goroshnikova Tatyana

Doktorov Boris

Drobysheva Nataliya

Dronova Svetlana

Yerokhina Oksana

• « 
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
•  »