Review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal “Business Navigator” and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.

The double-blind (anonymous) review is used in the journal “Business Navigator”: no personal data of the author/authors are disclosed to the reviewer; no personal data of the reviewer are disclosed to the author/authors.

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to primary control over compliance with the requirements for scientific articles.

The initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.

The editorial board defines a reviewer from the editorial board who oversees the relevant scientific field for the article submitted for publication.

In the absence of a curator of the relevant field, the editorial board appoints an external reviewer for this work.

Reviewers (both editorial board members and external reviewers) should be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of study (preferably in the last 5 years).


After reviewing the scientific article, the reviewer concludes:

- the article is recommended for publication;

- the article is recommended for publication after its revision by the author, taking into account the comments made;

- the article is not recommended for publication.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reason for such a decision should be stated in the review.

When reviewing, the editorial board recommends to use a standard form of review developed by the editorial board and posted on the journal’s website.


When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should:

- to pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific issue raised in the article;

- to evaluate how the author’s conclusions relate to the existing scientific concepts;

- to evaluate the authors’ adherence to the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.

Scientific articles may be referred for additional review. Reasons for re-reviewing may be:

- insufficient level of initial expert opinion;

- the sharp controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article. 

© Scientific and practical journal «Business Navigator», 2002-2024