- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Open Access Policy
- » Peer Review
- » Authorship and Contributorship
- » Policy Regarding the Publication of Preprints and Postprints
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Indexation
- » Founder
- » Author Charges and Fee
- » Disclosure of Competing Interests
- » License Agreement
- » Policy on the use of GenAI
- » Plagiarism Policy
- » Archiving
- » Revenue Sources
- » Data Sharing Policy
Aim and Scope
- Science and technology policy in transitional economies
- Technological sovereignty and security
- Risk assessment in innovation systems
- Intellectual property and patent analytics
- Project management and R&D efficiency
- State involvement in scientific development
- Digital transformation of knowledge production
- Metascience and research evaluation
- Research articles (8,000–10,000 words)
- Review articles (10,000–12,000 words)
- Research notes (5,000–6,000 words) for the Discussion section.
Section Policies
The issues of organizing and reforming science both as a sphere and individual organizations, as well as managing scientific organizations and departments in higher education.
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
The issues of financing scientific organizations and science as an industry, providing laboratory and experimental bases through funds, as well as training highly qualified personnel, researchers. An analysis of changes in the mentioned aspects of science functioning.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
The issues of scientific and technological development, types of technological progress, general conceptual positions related to the development of science and technology in the modern world, scientific and technological progress in various industries and sectors, its impact on the growth of both industries and the economy as a whole. Models and their imitations are also considered.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
The issues of setting and conducting fundamental and applied research, their practical significance, implementing them into technology, and the development of technological systems and the theory of systems.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Research on the dynamics of knowledge-based economy, with emphasis on the processes of knowledge creation, dissemination, and application in various organizations, industries, and regions.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
The institutionalization of scientific and technological development and the impact of policies (modeling). This section also publishes research related to the development of strategies and identification of priorities for scientific and technological development.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
This section aims, firstly, to promote the improvement of the quality and level of research in the field of the history of domestic and global science, in particular the history of economic science, and secondly, to unite the efforts of scientists and historians to recreate the holistic image of our cultural past.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
In this section, they publish short articles (up to 30,000 characters) on the most relevant and controversial issues within the main thematic sections of the journal.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
The rubric presents the the analysis of the economic aspects of higher education. Topics covered include (but not limited to) university funding models, tuition fees, and the impact of education policy on universities, students, and society.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Open Access Policy
The Economics of Science journal supports the diamond open access model. All articles published in the journal will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read, download, copy, and distribute. Articles are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY). The CC BY license allows for unlimited use, distribution, and reproduction on any medium, provided that the original work is cited. Journal authors who receive research grants from Coalition S sponsors and supporters comply with Plan S requirements. However, we recommend checking which open access options are supported by your grant provider and university policy using the Journal Checker Tool.
Peer Review
1. All submitted manuscripts undergo anti-plagiarism checking.
2. After submission, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief conducts initial screening to ensure compliance with the journal's scope and author guidelines. If a manuscript is found to be non-compliant with the requirements or the journal's standards, it will be rejected without further consideration.
3. The Economics of Science journal conducts a double-blind peer review of all manuscripts submitted for publication. Each article is evaluated by at least 2 peer reviewers. All reviewers are experts in their respective fields of science.
4. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, will send the manuscript for review to members of the journal's Editorial Board who are responsible for the relevant field of science, or to external experts. If there is no member of the Editorial Board available, or if the article comes from its member, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief will send it for review to external reviewers who are researchers and specialists in the field.
4.1. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief communicates with authors and reviewers via e-mail.
4.2. Reviewers work with articles as confidential material, strictly respecting the author's right to privacy until publication. They are not permitted to use manuscripts for personal gain without the author's written consent.
4.3. Researchers who work at the same institutions as the authors of the paper are not involved in reviewing it. Besides, each reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is an obvious conflict of interest that could affect their perception and interpretation of the manuscript.
4.4. Reviewers are required to follow the accepted editorial policy of the journal Economics of Science on compliance with ethical standards when reviewing articles, based on the international guideline of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Russian Association of Science Editors and Publishers (RASEP).
4.5. A review should include a qualified analysis of the manuscript, a fair and objective assessment, well-reasoned recommendations, and a conclusion. Reviewers should evaluate the relevance of the manuscript, its interest for the journal, and its suitability for publication based on the scope of the journal, the content of the manuscript, and its scientific level. The review may include recommendations for necessary and desirable changes, as well as suggestions for the reference list, if needed. In the final section of the review, the reviewer should draw conclusions about the material as a whole and provide recommendations regarding its publication:
- Accept the manuscript for publication.
- Accept the manuscript with minor revisions.
- Provisionally accept the manuscript with major revisions.
- Reject the article.
4.6. If the reviewer recommends revision, or does not recommend publication, the review should state the reasons for this decision.
5. The decision on the publication of an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews received. If the reviews differ, the decision is made unanimously by the Editor-in-Chief, Chair of the Editorial Board, and Deputy Editor-in-Chief. In case there are doubts about the publication, the Editorial Board may involve an additional expert to review the article.
6. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief notifies the author of the decision. The editorial decision is final.
7. Peer review is conducted confidentially for the authors of articles. The reviewer's identity is not typically disclosed to the author, although it can be shared with the reviewer's permission. With the mutual agreement of the author and reviewer, reviews may be published alongside the article.
8. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief maintains a record of all manuscripts submitted to the editorial team and presents the proposed content for the next issue to the Editor-in-Chief for approval.
9. The editorial team does not guarantee that manuscripts submitted will be published within the specified timeframe. On average, it takes approximately 42 days from submission to the editorial decision (3-7 days for initial evaluation of the manuscript, 7-10 days for securing reviewers, and 14-30 days for the actual review process).
10. Reviews are stored electronically for 5 years after the date of publication.
Authorship and Contributorship
The authors of the publication should be those who have made a significant contribution to the idea, development, execution, or interpretation of the research presented. All those who have contributed significantly should be listed as co-authors. If there are research participants who have made significant contributions in a specific area of the project, they should also be mentioned as persons who contributed to this study in a significant way.
If an article has more than one author, the contribution of each research participant must be explicitly stated in the 'Contributions' section immediately following the main text of the article. Contributions are described using the 14 standard roles from the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy):
- Conceptualization
- Data Curation
- Formal Analysis
- Funding Acquisition
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project Administration
- Resources
- Software Development
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – Original Draft
- Writing – Review & Editing
The contributions of each author should be listed as a bullet-point list or table, with roles separated by commas. Example:
- Ivanov A.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft.
- Petrova B.S.: Formal Analysis, Visualization.
The list of research participants (e.g., technicians, consultants, lab assistants) may exceed the number of article authors if their contributions do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., lack of intellectual participation or approval of the final work). However, the number of authors cannot exceed the number of participants who directly contributed to the research. Authorship requires significant intellectual engagement and accountability for the article’s content.
If an article has a single author, specifying contributor roles in the research is not mandatory but is encouraged.
All authors must disclose any financial or other potential conflicts of interest - see Disclosure of Competing Interests section.
See also License Agreement.
Policy Regarding the Publication of Preprints and Postprints
Economics of Science encourages the publication of preprints by authors prior to submission. We also encourage the publication of postprints, or accepted manuscripts, in institutional and interdisciplinary repositories such as SSRN and SocArxiv without an embargo on publication.
We would like to bring to your attention the Russian multidisciplinary platform PREPRINTS.RU, which provides a space for the publication of preprints before submission to journals. All materials submitted to PREPRINTS.RU are moderated including plagiarism check, and a DOI is assigned to each preprint. Users of the platform can comment on preprints and these comments are also moderated. The content is published under the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which allows authors to retain all rights to their work while allowing others to use it legally, conditioned they provide a reference to the original source.
Publishing Ethics
Introduction
The Editorial Board of Economics of Science journal takes a responsible approach to the task of maintaining the scientific reputation and is responsible for ensuring that all published materials meet rigorous academic criteria. The Editorial Board of the journal relies, in particular, on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), the Russian Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (RASEP), and the experience of reputable international journals and publishers. Ethical standards of our journal apply to all parties involved in the publication process (authors, editors, reviewers, publisher and scientific community).
The Editorial Board of Economics of Science expects all participants of the publication process adhere to the internationally recognized standards of academic publishing.
Declaration of Privacy
Personal information provided by authors to the Editorial Board of the journal Economics of Science, including e-mail addresses, will be used exclusively for the purposes of scientific publication. The Editorial Board undertakes not to disclose personal information to third parties.
We adhere to the following publishing ethics principles:
Right of first publication: By submitting a manuscript to the journal Economics of Science, the author(s) confirm(s) that the submitted scientific work has not been previously published and is not under consideration in other journals. All incoming submissions are screened for plagiarism using Antiplagiat.
Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest: All parties involved in the peer review and publication process (editors, authors, and reviewers) must consider and disclose affiliations that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest (financial relationships (e.g., employment, consulting, equity ownership, royalties, patents, or paid peer review), personal relationships, political or religious interests, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs).
Authorship:
The Editorial Board of Economics of Science, following the COPE recommendation, requires authors to have contributed substantially to the research and to accept responsibility for it.
In order to correctly define the contribution, we recommend the authors use the CRediT - Contributor Roles Taxonomy scheme.
For more information, see Authorship and Contributorship.
Policy on the use of GenAI:
Generative artificial intelligence and AI-based technologies can be used in academic literature to improve the language of a manuscript, including grammar, syntax, and spelling. In this case, no declaration of AI use is required from the author(s).
In all other cases, authors must declare the use of generative AI technologies in the “Additional Information” section. The statement may be as follows: “During the preparation of this article, we used [name of tool/service] for [reason]. After using this tool/service, we reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.” This means that the use of AI technologies must be accompanied by human supervision and control. Authors should carefully review and edit the results obtained, as text generated by AI can often be erroneous, incomplete, or biased. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their work.
If the manuscript contains images created or modified using generative AI or AI-supported tools, authors must disclose this in the “Additional Information” section, providing a detailed description of when and how these tools were used. In addition, authors must confirm that they have obtained all necessary rights to use such materials.
Authorship of a manuscript can only be attributed to a human. AI and AI-supported technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors due to their inability to meet the criteria for authorship: they cannot take responsibility for the work, give consent for publication, manage copyright, or resolve issues related to conflicts of interest.
Funding: The editors of Economic of Science journal require authors to disclose all funding sources in their manuscripts.
Significant errors in published work: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is his/her responsibility to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of the journal and to co-operate with the editorial team to publish a retraction or correction of the article. If the Editor-in-Chief is notified by a third party that the published work contains a significant error, it is the author's responsibility to promptly retract or correct the article, or to provide the Editor-in-Chief with evidence substantiating the accuracy of the published work.
Citation and acknowledgement of primary sources
Authors of scientific articles published in Economics of Science are required to observe proper citation practices. The citation should be reasonable, appropriate to the context of the research and contribute to the academic discourse.
Is unacceptable:
- Excessive self-citation that distorts the author's contribution to the research.
- ‘Manipulative citation’ - inclusion of references to works solely to increase their citation value or under pressure from editors/authors.
- Incorrect borrowing without indicating the source (plagiarism).
Authors are responsible for proper citation practices and accuracy of bibliographic data.
The journal strictly prohibits Editor-in-Chief, reviewers, or Editorial Board members from coercing authors to reference the RANEPA publications, their own works, or colleagues' research as a prerequisite for publication. Any recommendations for citation of papers should be based on their scientific significance and aim to improve the submitted material.
Violation of citation norms is considered as a violation of publication ethics and may lead to refusal of publication or withdrawal of the article.
Responsibilities of Editors
- Procedure for deciding on publication
The final decision to publish an article in Economics of Science is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the conclusions of reviewers and recommendations of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content of all materials published in the journal.
- Principle of impartiality
The Editorial Board evaluates scientific manuscripts solely on the basis of their intellectual content and compliance with the criteria of the journal. It is not allowed to discriminate authors on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship or political views.
- Confidentiality
The editor and members of the editorial board are obliged to ensure the confidentiality of information about the received manuscripts. Only authors, assigned reviewers, scientific advisors, and publisher's representatives have access to the materials.
- Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.1 Use of unpublished data
Any data or ideas generated during the review process may not be used for personal or commercial purposes without the written permission of the author(s). Reviewers and editors are obliged to keep such information confidential.
4.2 Managing Conflicts of Interest
If an editor or reviewer has a conflict of interest (e.g. personal, professional or financial ties to authors or organisations associated with the research), they must recuse themselves from the manuscript review process.
- Publication Oversight
An editor who has provided convincing evidence that the claims or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should report this to the Publisher for prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern, and other situation-appropriate statements.
- Involvement and co-operation in research
The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher, shall take adequate responses to ethical complaints regarding manuscripts or published material reviewed. Such responses generally include engagement with the authors of the manuscript and the arguments of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve engagement with relevant organisations and research centres.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Role of the reviewer in the editorial process
Reviewing plays a key role in the editorial decision to publish a research paper. It not only helps to assess the quality of the research, but also contributes to its improvement through constructive feedback. Economics of Science adheres to the principle that participation in peer review is a professional obligation of the scientific community.
- Timeliness and competence
A reviewer who receives an invitation to evaluate a manuscript should accept it only if he/she:
- have a sufficient expertise in the research topic;
- can provide the review within the established deadlines.
If the reviewer does not fulfil these conditions, he/she must notify the editorial office immediately and withdraw from the process.
- Observance of confidentiality
Materials sent for review are confidential. They may not be passed on to third parties, discussed in open sources or used for personal purposes without the consent of the authors and the editorial board.
- Objectivity and reasoned evaluation
The reviewer should:
- give a balanced and unbiased assessment of the scientific content of the work;
- avoid subjective judgements and personal criticism of the authors;
- clearly justify all comments and recommendations.
- Academic compliance review
The reviewer's responsibilities include:
- checking completeness of citations and availability of references to key works on the topic;
- identifying possible cases of incorrect borrowing or plagiarism;
- informing the editorial board about significant similarities of the reviewed work with already published materials.
- Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
6.1 Use of data from peer-reviewed manuscripts
It is prohibited to use ideas, methods, or results from unpublished work without written permission from the authors. All information obtained during the review process must remain confidential.
6.2 Conditions of the reviewer's withdrawal
A reviewer should not participate in the evaluation of a manuscript if he/she has:
- personal, professional, or financial ties with the authors;
- Disclosure of Competing Interests (For more details, see section);
- affiliation with organisations interested in the results of the study.
In such cases, it is necessary to report the conflict of interest to the Editorial Board and withdraw from the review.
Responsibilities of Authors
- Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1 Authors of a paper on original research should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work should be presented in an unmistakable manner. The work should contain sufficient detail and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2 Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, with the Editorial Board's point of view clearly stated.
4.2 Access to and storage of data
Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from the Authors for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
3. Originality and plagiarism
3.1 The journal strictly monitors that published articles are original and plagiarism-free, therefore we ask authors to be careful about the design of references, citations and to indicate all authors of the submitted materials. The editorial board follows the attitude that plagiarism is unacceptable in science. According to the editorial policy, the presence of plagiarism in the submitted material makes it impossible to publish this text, as well as other articles of the author in the journal in the future.
The editorial board of the journal can check the manuscript with the help of the Antiplagiat system when reviewing the article. English-language manuscripts can be additionally checked in the ‘iThenticate’ programme.
3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as the author's, to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of other people's work (without attribution), to claiming one's own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
- Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneous publications
4.1 An author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is perceived as unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
- Recognition of primary sources
The contributions of others should always be recognised. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluations or grants, should not be used without explicit written authorisation from the Authors of the work relating to the confidential sources.
- authorship of the publication
6.3.1 Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the work, design, execution, or interpretation of the research presented may be Authors of a publication. All those who have made a significant contribution should be labelled as Co-authors.
6.3.2 The journal Economics of Science adheres to the following criteria of authorship:
- Substantial contribution to the conceptualisation or planning of a scientific work, or the derivation, analysis or interpretation of that work; and
- Writing a draft manuscript or critically revising it with valuable intellectual content; and
- final approval of the published version of the manuscript; and
- Agreeing to accept responsibility for all aspects of the work and guaranteeing that all issues relating to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work can be adequately investigated and resolved.
In addition to taking responsibility for those parts of the work that the author performed himself/herself, he/she should have an idea of which co-authors are responsible for other specific components of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All individuals designated as authors must meet all four criteria for an author, and all individuals meeting these four criteria must be identified as authors.
Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.
6.3.3 Contributions of authors and non-authors
The Acknowledgements section may mention people who contributed to the work but do not fulfil the criteria for authorship, for example: supporting the study, acting as a mentor, assisting with data collection, coordinating the study, etc.
To correctly identify contributions, authors of Economics of Science can use one of the schema recommended by COPE - CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. More detailed information is provided in the section “Authorship and Contributorship.”
6.3.4 Disputes
In case of disputes about authorship, the work with the article is terminated regardless of the stage (consideration, reviewing, editing or preparation for printing) it is at.
All co-authors are informed about the occurrence of an authorship dispute by e-mail.
The Editor of Economics of Science has the right to specify the exact period within which the authors can provide clarification on the requested issues. After the expiration of this period, the article is withdrawn from publication with the corresponding explanation.
If a dispute arises with respect to a published article, the editorial board of the journal Economics of Science publishes a correction, refutation, or withdrawal of the article, indicating the reason for making changes to the published document.
If it is necessary to add or exclude a co-author before or after publication, the Editorial Board of Economics of Science acts in accordance with the COPE rules:
https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf
https://publicationethics.org/node/34601
6.3.5 To prevent manipulations with co-authorship, the Editorial Board of the Economics of Science journal uses the COPE flowchart and when working with the article draws attention to the following:
- It is indicated that the research was funded by an organisation whose authors are not on the common list. This requires a more thorough check of the contribution of all authors and, if necessary, requesting the necessary explanations from the responsible author.
- the list of authors includes scientists from another scientific field. This may indicate guest authorship.
- mentioning a person in the Acknowledgements section without specifying a specific contribution.
- a very long or very short list of authors that is atypical for the field or type of article.
- incomplete description of the authors' contribution: for example, no information about who prepared the draft version of the manuscript or processed the data.
- Anti-Plagiarism check shows that there are borrowings from a dissertation paper whose author is not listed in the list of authors.
- articles on similar topics were published by other teams of authors.
- the list of authors suddenly changes at the stage of article publication without prior discussion with the journal`s Editorial Board.
- the author has a lot of publications, although his/her position does not imply such publication activity (head of department, director of an institute).
- the author responsible for correspondence cannot respond to the reviewers' comments.
6.3.6. the Editorial Board of the journal Economics of Science expects organisations affiliated with the author to be willing to participate in the investigation of authorship disputes.
- Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
7.1 All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the paper.
7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consultancy, share ownership, receipt of honoraria, provision of expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
- Significant errors in published works
If the author discovers substantial errors or inaccuracies in a publication, the author should inform the Editor of Economics of Science or the Publisher and liaise with the Editor to withdraw the publication or correct the errors as soon as possible. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
Responsibilities of the Publisher
- Adherence to Editorial Policies
The Publisher must follow policies and procedures that promote the fulfilment of ethical responsibilities by the editors, reviewers and authors of Economics of Science in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must ensure that potential profits from advertising or reprint production have not influenced the decisions of the Editors.
- Editorial Board Support
The Publisher shall fully assist the Editorial Board in:
- handling ethical complaints;
- resolving disputes;
- organising cooperation with other scientific publications
- implementation of editorial policy in accordance with international standards.
- Development of scientific practices
The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retraction procedures, and error correction.
- Legal support
The publisher should provide appropriate specialised legal support (opinion or advice) where necessary.
Complaints and appeals
The Editorial Board of Economics of Science is sensitive to complaints about the behaviour of editors and reviewers, which may relate to issues such as breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information obtained during the review process. Authors may also disagree with decisions about expressing doubts about certain articles or complain about violations of editorial processes.
All complaints can be submitted via ecna@ranepa.ru and they will be processed in the standard manner. The complaint review process takes no more than 7 days. The person who sent the complaint will be informed about the decision, the measures to be taken and the timeframe for their implementation.
The editorial team will rely on the COPE Guidelines in each of the following cases:
Dealing with post-publication criticism
Post-publication discussions and revisions
Suspicion of post-publication peer review manipulation
Image manipulation in a published article
Fabrication of data in a published article
Post-publication discussions and changes to published articles
In some cases, it is necessary to make changes to an already published article. The Editorial Board of Economics of Science supports the practice of making changes to published materials and in case of such necessity acts in accordance with the COPE recommendations.
Any necessary changes are accompanied by a post-publication notification, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can be informed of any necessary changes.
What should authors do if they find an error in their article?
Authors may discover a technical or conceptual error already after the article has been published. In such a case, authors should notify the Editorial Board of Economics of Science as soon as possible, especially in the case of errors that may affect the interpretation of the results or cast doubt on the reliability of the information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching agreement within the author's team on further communication with the Editorial Board.
If you feel that a published article needs to be modified, please contact us via ecna@ranepa.ru
Indexation
Articles published in Economics of Science are indexed in the following systems:
- Russian Index of Science Citation (RISC) – a database that accumulates information on publications by Russian scientists in domestic and foreign publications.
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) – the largest platform for indexing open access journals.
- Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) – a key national project in China's information infrastructure.
- EconPapers (RePEc) -a global initiative to disseminate research results in economics and related fields.
- Google Scholar – a platform that indexes full-text scientific works in various formats and disciplines. Google Scholar indexes numerous electronic scientific journals, as well as scientific books and non-peer-reviewed publications.
- CyberLeninka – a scientific electronic library built on the paradigm of Open Science.
- Lan' – an electronic library.
Founder
Economics of Science is funded by the founder, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
Author Charges and Fee
Publication in the journal is free of charge for all the authors.
The author's fee is not accrued or paid.
Disclosure of Competing Interests
Disclosure of competing interests is an essential concept in the field of scientific publishing. It refers to the process of revealing potential conflicts of interest that could arise during the research and publication process. These conflicts may involve financial relationships with outside organizations or personal biases and positions that could influence the research.
It is crucial for researchers to disclose these potential conflicts so that readers can assess the reliability of the research. Competing interests arise when individuals or organizations with an interest in a particular research topic attempt to influence the results or dissemination of the research, such as when businesses fund scientific research or when individuals have a particular ideological or political stance.
To ensure the integrity of scientific research, it is essential to disclose information about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise during the research process and in the communication of research findings.
Policy on the use of GenAI
Generative artificial intelligence and AI-based technologies can be used in academic literature to improve the language of a manuscript, including grammar, syntax, and spelling. In this case, no declaration of AI use is required from the author(s).
In all other cases, authors must declare the use of generative AI technologies in the “Additional Information” section. The statement may be as follows: “During the preparation of this article, we used [name of tool/service] for [reason]. After using this tool/service, we reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.” This means that the use of AI technologies must be accompanied by human supervision and control. Authors should carefully review and edit the results obtained, as text generated by AI can often be erroneous, incomplete, or biased. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their work.
If the manuscript contains images created or modified using generative AI or AI-supported tools, authors must disclose this in the “Additional Information” section, providing a detailed description of when and how these tools were used. In addition, authors must confirm that they have obtained all necessary rights to use such materials.
Authorship of a manuscript can only be attributed to a human. AI and AI-supported technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors due to their inability to meet the criteria for authorship: they cannot take responsibility for the work, give consent for publication, manage copyright, or resolve issues related to conflicts of interest.
Plagiarism Policy
The editorial board of the Economics of Science journal implements a strict zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. All submitted articles undergo thorough plagiarism checks (Antiplagiat, “iThenticate”). In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial team acts in accordance with COPE rules.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (rsl.ru)
- Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru)
- Cyberleninka (cyberleninka.ru)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the publisher.
Publication in Economics of Science journals is free of charge for all the authors. The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges. The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Data Sharing Policy
The Economics of Science journals supports and encourages authors to make available the data that underlie the results presented in their articles by archiving it in an appropriate public repository or by making it available upon reasonable request through the corresponding author. Authors are required to complete a data availability statement that will be published alongside their article; this statement must include a reference to the original data provided in their reference list.
Authors are encouraged to use the indexing services of re3data.org and FAIRsharing.org. Alternatively, their affiliated university may provide a repository for its researchers.
