- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Online first policy
Aim and Scope
The journal is a platform for interaction between scientists, experts, specialists in state administration, entrepreneurs and business practitioners to discuss various aspects of digital transformation, impact of digital technologies on the economic, management and social aspects of the activities of the state and companies, as well as risks associated with digital transformation.
1. Strategic managerial decisions and Decision-making process:
Development, implementation and execution of strategic and long-term managerial decisions;
Rational and behavioral methods and techniques in decision-making and managerial problem solving;
Making decisions as a cognitive process. Application results of neurosciences for the decision-making process;
Strategic managerial decisions in organizational context;
Tools and techniques for economic rationale for managerial decision and evaluation of their implementation performance;
Practical use of software systems supporting decision-making.
2. Strategic management and business strategies:
Development process, implementation and execution of the strategy in business organizations;
Strategic changes and leadership;
Innovation, entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship as strategic development factors;
Long-term impact of the environmental, social, and governance criteria (ESG), and Sustainable Development Goals on business strategies;
International business strategies.
3. Technological development and operational strategy:
Technological development and its impact on business strategies and business models;
Operational strategies: development and rationale;
Digital business transformation strategies and implementation of the fourth industrial revolution technologies;
Methods and techniques of development and implementation of new products and technological processes.
4. Risk management:
Identifying and analyzing of risks when developing and implementing managerial decisions. Methods and techniques;
Management methodology for strategic risks;
Quantitative and qualitative methods of risk assessment.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
IndexedPublication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
"Strategic decisions and risk management" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediately upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
Russian State Library (RSL)
National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Peer Review Process
The journal conducts a double-blind peer review of manuscripts received. Only if there are two positive reviews, the article can be accepted for publication.
1. Organization and procedure of reviewing
1.1. An article is considered provided that it meets the requirements to authors’ articles originals (materials) placed on the journal website: www.jsdrm.ru in Requirements to articles for publishing in the Journal Section.
1.2. An article is registered by the Executive Secretary in the article log book with specification of the date of acceptance, name, author’s (authors’) last name, first name, patronymic and place of employment. The article has an individual registration number assigned. The information specified shall be added to the database as well. Articles accepted at the editorial office shall be reviewed.
1.3. The Editor-in-Chief shall send the article for review to a member of the Editorial Board, who supervises the corresponding area / scientific discipline. If there is not a member of the Editorial Board or the article is submitted by a member of the Editorial Board then the Editor-in-Chief shall send the article for review to independent reviewers.
1.4. Manuscripts reviewing shall be confidential for the purpose of copyright protection. Confidentiality may be broken in the event of the reviewer’s claim about falsification of the provided materials.
1.5. The reviewer shall evaluate correspondence of the article to the Journal scientific profile, its relevance, novelty, theoretical and (or) practical importance, availability of a summary and recommendations, correspondence to the defined design rules.
1.6. The period of articles review shall be defined by the Journal Editor-in-Chief taking into account the terms of a maximum quick response to the publication author and shall not be more than 30 work days upon their acceptance by the reviewer.
1.7. An article accepted for publication but requiring some improvement shall be sent to its author with the corresponding remarks of the reviewer and/or the Editor-in-Chief. The author shall make all required corrections in the final version of the manuscript and submit it to the editorial office in electronic or hard-copy form together with the initial version and a covering letter-answer to the reviewer. After being improved the article shall be reviewed one more time and the editorial staff shall make a decision about its publication possibility. Articles sent to their authors for making corrections shall be returned to the editorial office within the period specified by it. If an article is returned later the date of its publishing may be changed.
1.8. When having a positive review the editorial staff shall inform the author about his article publishing and the date of publishing.
1.9. Those authors whose articles were refused shall get a well-grounded refusal.
1.10. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their needs and prohibited to send any part of a manuscript for review to another person without permission of the editorial staff. The reviewers and editorial staff shall not have the right to use the information about the paper content before publishing it in their own interest. Manuscripts are authors’ intellectual property and belong to the information which cannot be disclosed.
1.11. The editorial staff does not keep manuscripts which were not accepted for publishing. Manuscripts accepted for publishing are not given back. Manuscripts which had a negative feedback from the reviewer are neither published nor returned.
1.12. Reviews of articles accepted for publishing shall be kept in the editorial office of the Journal within three years upon their publishing and submitted at requests of the corresponding Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (HAC).
2. Requirements for reviewers
2.1. Reviewers should be recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past three years.
3. Requirements to the review content
3.1. A review shall contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its impartial well-reasoned assessment and a well-grounded resume about the publication.
3.2. Special attention in a review should be paid to the following questions:
- general analysis of the scientific level, topic relevance, article structure, terminology;
- evaluation of conformance of the article materials design to the defined requirements: article size in whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrations, literature references); appropriateness of putting tables and illustrations in the article, and their correspondence to the given topic;
- scientific character of the statement, correspondence of the methods, recommendations and research results used by the author to modern achievements of science and practice;
- reliability of the given facts, argumentativeness of hypotheses, summary and conclusion;
- scientific novelty and importance of the material given in the article;
- inaccuracy and mistakes made by the author;
- recommendations regarding reasonable volume contraction or necessary additions to the materials offered for publishing, which explain the main point of the given research results (specify which article element they are for);
- conclusion about publication possibility.
3.3. The signature affixed on a review shall be certified at the reviewer’s place of work. In the event the reviewer is known to the editorial staff his signature needn’t be certified.
At the reviewer’s will reviews can be written in any format meeting the requirements of cl. 3.2 of this Provision.
Indexation
Articles in "Strategic decisions and risk management" are indexed by several systems:
Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
The journal is also included in the following international scientometric and bibliographic databases:
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals),
Jurn,
JURN,
MIAR (Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals),
NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data,
Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory,
Российская государственная библиотека,
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics,
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal ""Strategic decisions and risk management" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer-reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Strategic decisions and risk management".
1.2.The publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. The publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Strategic decisions and risk management" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of "Strategic decisions and risk management" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Strategic decisions and risk management" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over the published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Strategic decisions and risk management" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgment of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Strategic decisions and risk management" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Strategic decisions and risk management" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Strategic decisions and risk management" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- The Finance University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Finance University)
- Real Economy Publishing House
Author fees
Publication in «Strategic decisions and risk management» 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.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
«Strategic decisions and risk management» use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in «Strategic decisions and risk management», authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in «Strategic decisions and risk management» we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.
Online first policy
The Editorial Board of «Strategic decisions and risk management» is pleased to invite authors to publish open access before their articles are published in an approved issue of «Strategic decisions and risk management» Online first articles can be cited and referenced using DOI. Any changes will be made to the final version of the article in the published issue of «Strategic decisions and risk management».
All manuscripts posted in Online first have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in «Strategic decisions and risk management» as is.
As soon as the article posted in Online first is published in a particular issue of «Strategic decisions and risk management» and when it obtains reference data, including the year of publication, volume, number, page numbers, permalink, it could be accessed from the archive of «Strategic decisions and risk management»", rather than from Online first webpage.
Online first is the final version of the article accepted for publication, which cannot be changed during publication or withdrawn. No fixed page numbers and no link to a particular issue of the journal differ an Online first article from a traditional published article. DOIs shall be assigned to Online first articles so that they could be cited correctly.
Should an Online first article contain mistakes that need to be corrected, the author is to send a request for changes to be made to the text of the article. Comments on such changes shall be added to the information about the article.
Benefits of Online first articles:
access to the latest academic and scientific research;
faster publication (articles can be cited before the journal issue is compiled).
How to cite an Online first article:
When citing an Online first article, the following shall be specified: the author's name, the title of the article, the title of the journal, the year of publication, DOI and the date of access.
