1. Revision organizes reviewing submitted manuscripts. It only allowed the publication of the manuscript, the text of which is recommended by independent experts (reviewers).
2. To carry out the review and examination work as reviewers and experts may be invited as members of the editorial board, as well as highly qualified scientists and specialists with profound knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, as a rule, doctors and professors are not included in the editorial board of the journal. The reviewer can not be the author or co-author of the book under review.
3. Revision does not report information concerning the manuscript (including information on its receipt, content review process, reviewers’ criticisms and the final decision), to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their needs and are prohibited to give part of the manuscript for review by another person without the permission of the publisher. Reviewers and editorial staff are not allowed to use the knowledge of the content of the work before publication in their own interests. The manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure.
4. Requirements to the content of the review.
4.1. The review should include a qualified analysis of manuscript material, objective evaluation of his reasoned and reasonable recommendations.
4.2. In his review, special attention should be paid to covering the following issues:
– A general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, the relevance of the topic;
– Assessment of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in respect of language and style, satisfy the requirements for registration of manuscript materials;
– Scientific presentation, compliance used by the author of methods, techniques, advice and the results of research achievements of modern science and practice;
– The admissibility of the manuscript volume as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references). Feasibility of space in the article tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated topic.
– Place the book under review among others, have published on this topic: What’s new in it, or how it differs from them, do not duplicate the work of other authors or earlier printed works of the author (in whole or in part);
– The author admitted inaccuracies and errors.
4.3. The reviewer should provide guidance to the author and editors to improve the manuscript. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
4.4. The final part of the review should be kept informed of the conclusions of the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation about whether it should be published in the journal.
4.5. In the case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole reviewer shall justify its findings.

5. Without a review article published in the Journal of the members of the Tajik State Academies of Sciences (academicians and corresponding members), members of the editorial board, as well as articles, accompanied by a written representation of the members of the Tajik state academies of sciences.
6. Reviewing terms in each case determined by the executive secretary of the editorial board at the request of the chief editor with the creation of conditions for the most rapid publication of articles (but no more than 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editor).
7. The procedure for informing the authors about the results of the review.
7.1. After receiving positive review editors responsible shall inform the authors about the admission of articles for publication, indicating the timing of publication. Review copy sent to the author with the magazine in which the article was published.
7.2. Upon receipt of the negative reviews of the executive secretary of the editorial board sends the author a copy of the review with a proposal to modify the article in line with the comments of the reviewer, or arguments (partially or completely) to refute them.
7.3. The review is confidential, review available to the author without a signature and the name, position, place of work the reviewer.
8 Reviews may be submitted at the request of VAK expert advice.
9. Article modified (processed), the author re-routed for review.
10. The decision whether the publication is received after reviewing the chief editor, and, if necessary – the editorial board as a whole.
11. It is not allowed to be published:
a) Items not designed properly, the authors reject the technical improvements of articles;
b) Articles in which the authors do not respond to constructive comments from reviewer, their implementation or denial.
Considered and approved at a meeting of the Editorial Board (Minutes № 2 of 2015)

Storage reviews of manuscripts received by the editorial office

1. All manuscripts received by the magazine “Economy of Tajikistan”, are subject to mandatory review.
2. The originals are kept in the editorial reviews “Tajikistan and the Modern World” for five years. Including providing the competent authorities on request.