The editorial policy for publishing scientific papers in Conference Proceedings of the TWENTIETH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS "THE ECONOMY OF BULGARIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: 20 YEARS SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY ON THE ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROZONE FROM 1.01.2026" reflects the principles set out in the "Code of Conduct, Guidelines and Good Practices of Editors of Publications" (COPE) and in the internal regulatory documents of the UNWE. The rules regulate the standards of ethical behavior of all participants in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers and the University of National and World Economy as the publisher.

The editorial policy defines the principles, rules and procedures for accepting, reviewing, editing and publishing scientific papers in Conference Proceedings of the TWENTIETH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS "THE ECONOMY OF BULGARIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: 20 YEARS SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY ON THE ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROZONE FROM 1.01.2026".

The editorial policy aims to guarantee:

• high scientific quality;
• academic integrity;
• transparency of the editorial process;
• equality of all authors;
• independence of editorial decisions;
• compliance with international standards for scientific publishing.

The editorial process is based on the principles of scientific ethics, objectivity, impartiality and confidentiality. The publication provides free access to published scientific materials with the aim of maximum dissemination and use of scientific knowledge.

The editorial team carries out its activities in compliance with the following principles:

Scientific independence

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific value of the submitted manuscripts. Political, institutional, financial, religious or personal considerations do not influence the evaluation process.

Academic integrity

All participants in the publication process adhere to the principles of academic ethics. The following are not allowed:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism;
• manipulation of data;
• fabrication of results;
• misleading authorship.

Impartiality

All manuscripts are considered without discrimination in terms of:

• nationality;
• gender;
• age;
• institutional affiliation;
• religion;
• political views;
• ethnicity.

Editorial independence

The editors make decisions independently of:

• the conference organizers;
• funding organizations;
• the authors’ employers;
• sponsors;
• external stakeholders.

The editor bears full responsibility for the final decision on publication. The scientific content is determined by academic criteria, not by institutional, financial or organizational pressures.

The content of the proceedings is built on the principles of:

• independence of editorial decisions;
• separation between organizational and editorial activities;
• protection of editors from external influence;
• acceptance criteria based solely on scientific quality.

Confidentiality

All materials are treated as confidential. The editors:

• do not provide information about manuscripts;
• do not reveal the identity of reviewers;
• use the information solely for editorial purposes.

Transparency

The editorial process is publicly described. The conference website publishes:

• the editorial policy;
• the peer review policy;
• the publication ethics;
• the requirements for authors;
• the anti-plagiarism policy;
• the corrections and withdrawal procedures.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM

The editor-in-chief:

• organizes the editorial process;
• appoints reviewers;
• monitors quality;
• makes final decisions;
• ensures compliance with ethical standards.

The editorial team:

• assists the editor;
• proposes reviewers;
• evaluates the peer review policy;
• participates with proposals for changes in the editorial policy.

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING PAPERS

Only manuscripts that:

• contain original scientific research;
• have not been published before;
• are not simultaneously being considered by another publication;
• correspond to the thematic scope;
• contain a clear description of the methodology used;
• include scientifically substantiated results;
• contain up-to-date literature sources;
• have successfully passed the double anonymous peer review procedure.

 

EDITORIAL PROCESS

The editorial process includes the following stages:

1. Sending the paper.
2. Checking for compliance with technical requirements.
3. Checking for plagiarism.
4. Appointment of two independent reviewers.
5. Receiving reviews.
6. Reflecting corrections (if necessary).
7. Re-reviewing.
8. Final decision.
9. Language editing.
10. Pre-press preparation.
11. Publication.

 

The editorial team stores:

• the manuscripts/reports;
• reviews;
• declarations;
• correspondence;
• editorial decisions.

Documents are kept for a minimum of five years after publication. Authors are encouraged to provide access to the research data used, whenever possible and does not violate ethical or legal restrictions.

 

PEER REVIEW POLICY

The peer review policy aims to ensure the high scientific quality, originality and academic value of the publications included in the conference proceedings. The review process is independent, impartial, transparent and based on internationally recognized standards for scientific publishing. All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review. In this model: the authors do not know who the reviewers are; the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; the editors guarantee anonymity throughout the process.

This model reduces the risk of bias and ensures an objective assessment.

STAGES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

The author submits his/her report to the official conference email address – [email protected]. The editorial team checks: compliance with the thematic scope; compliance with technical requirements; presence of all necessary declarations.

Stage 2. Plagiarism Check

Each manuscript is checked with specialized software – Strike Plagiarism. If the percentages of: plagiarism; self-plagiarism; manipulated images; fabricated data are found to be above the permissible percentages, the report is rejected immediately.

Stage 3. Appointment of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief appoints two independent reviewers who:

• possess scientific competence on the topic;
• have no conflict of interest;
• do not belong to the same institution as the author (when possible).

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Stage 4. Independent evaluation

Each reviewer performs an independent evaluation, without contact with the author or the other reviewer.

Stage 5. Editorial decision

Possible decisions:

• Accepted without corrections.
• Accepted after minor corrections.
• Accepted after substantial corrections.
• Re-review required.
• Rejected.

The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The reviewers evaluate:

1. Scientific originality

The research must offer a new scientific contribution.

2. Relevance

The topic should be significant for the development of economic science.

3. Methodology

The methods used must be: adequate; reliable; clearly described; reproducible.

4. Analysis

The results must be: logically analyzed; statistically justified (when applicable); supported by scientific arguments.

5. Conclusions

Conclusions must arise from the presented results.

6. Bibliography

The bibliography should:

• be up-to-date;
• include international sources;
• contain scientific publications from recent years.

Reviewers fill in the evaluations according to the specified indicators in the Review Form.

ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWERS

Reviewers are obliged to:

• maintain confidentiality;
• evaluate impartially;
• declare a conflict of interest;
• refuse a review in the absence of competence;
• report suspected violations of academic ethics.

 DEADLINES

The approximate deadlines for making a decision on publication are as follows:

• Initial review – up to 7 days.
• Preparation of a review – up to 21 days.
• Corrections by the author – up to 14 days.
• Re-evaluation – up to 14 days.
• Final decision – up to 7 days.

 CONFIDENTIALITY

Reviewers may not:

• use information from the manuscript;
• copy parts of it;
• distribute the content;
• discuss the manuscript with third parties.

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A reviewer may not accept to be a reviewer if:

• has been a co-author with the author in recent years;
• works at the same institution;
• has a financial interest;
• there are personal relationships that may influence the evaluation.

REPEATING

In case of significant corrections, the report is sent again to the same reviewers.

REVIEWER SELECTION POLICY

Selection criteria:

• academic degree;
• publication activity;
• expertise in the field;
• independence;
• international experience.

PUBLICATION ETHICS POLICY

This policy defines the ethical principles and standards that apply to the publication of scientific papers in the conference proceedings. The editorial team is guided by the internationally recognized principles of scientific integrity, transparency, objectivity and professional responsibility. All participants in the scientific publishing process – authors, editors and reviewers – are obliged to comply with this policy.

Editorial activity is based on the following principles:

• academic integrity;
• scientific objectivity;
• independence of editorial decisions;
• transparency confidentiality;
• equality;
• non-discrimination;
• responsibility to the scientific community.

AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITIES

The authors declare that:

• the submitted article is an original scientific study;
• the manuscript has not been published elsewhere;
• the report is not being considered by another publication at the same time;
• all co-authors have given their consent for publication;
• the sources used are correctly cited;
• the data are not manipulated, fabricated or falsified.

The authors bear full responsibility for the content of the publication.

AUTHORSHIP

An author is considered a person who has made a significant contribution to:

• the development of the idea;
• the collection or analysis of data;
• the writing or editing of the manuscript;
• the approval of the final version.

The following are not allowed:

• fictitious authorship;
• gifted authorship;
• hidden authorship.

PLAGIARISM

The conference applies a zero-tolerance policy towards:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism;
• unauthorized use of other people's ideas;
• unauthorized use of images, tables or figures;
• manipulation of results.

All manuscripts are checked with specialized software – Strike Plagiarism. If a violation is detected, the editorial board may:

• reject the manuscript;
• notify the author;
• if necessary, inform the relevant institution.

The Plagiarism Policy aims to guarantee the academic integrity, originality and reliability of published scientific materials. The publication does not allow the publication of texts that constitute plagiarism, unauthorized appropriation of scientific ideas, data, results, formulations or other intellectual products of other authors. The policy applies to all materials submitted for publication, including:

• scientific reports;
• review publications;
• theoretical works;
• methodological studies;
• short scientific communications;
• reviews and other editorial materials.

Plagiarism is considered to be:

• using someone else's text, ideas, concepts, data or results without appropriate citation;
• copying significant parts of publications by other authors;
• self-plagiarism by republishing significant parts of one's own previous work without clear indication;
• duplicate publication of the same scientific results in different publications;
• presenting someone else's scientific work as one's own contribution;
• manipulating citations in order to artificially increase scientific influence.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to verification for originality before the review procedure begins. The editorial board uses appropriate specialized systems to establish similarities between texts and available scientific publications. The results of the verification are evaluated by the editor-in-chief or a designated member of the editorial board. If plagiarism is detected, the editorial board may take the following actions:

• refusal to consider the manuscript;
• termination of the review procedure;
• rejection of the article;
• publication of a correction or withdrawal of already published material;
• notification of the institution to which the author belongs, when necessary.

Authors bear full responsibility for the originality of the submitted materials and guarantee that:

• all sources used are correctly cited;
• the contributions of other researchers are clearly indicated;
• the submitted text does not infringe copyright:
• Artificial intelligence cannot be indicated as an author.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICY

The publication strives to guarantee independence, transparency and impartiality at all stages of the editorial process. All persons involved in the preparation, evaluation and publication of scientific materials should declare potential conflicts of interest. Authors are required to declare all potential conflicts of interest, including:

• financial relationships;
• institutional affiliations;
• professional or personal relationships;
• other circumstances that may influence the interpretation of the results.

If a conflict exists, it must be clearly declared in the manuscript. Editors and reviewers also declare a conflict of interest and, if necessary, are removed from the relevant procedure. Editors do not participate in the evaluation of manuscripts when:

• they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors;
• they participated in the research;
• they have a financial interest in the publication or rejection of the material.

Reviewers must refuse to evaluate when:

• they know the authors personally and this may influence the independent evaluation;
• they work in the same organization;
• they have a competing, financial or other interest.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

Editors: evaluate manuscripts solely according to scientific criteria; guarantee impartiality; ensure confidentiality; prevent conflict of interest; monitor compliance with the ethical standards.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers: perform an independent assessment; observe confidentiality; give reasoned recommendations; notify the editor in case of suspected violations of academic ethics; do not use the information from the manuscript for personal purposes.

CORRECTIONS AND WITHDRAWAL

If serious errors are identified after publication, the editorial board may: publish a correction; publish an editorial note; temporarily suspend access; withdraw the publication. The reasons may be: proven plagiarism; fabricated data; serious methodological errors; violations of publication ethics.

PROCEDURE IN CASE OF SUSPECTED VIOLATION

The editorial board: registers the signal; performs a preliminary check; requests a statement from the author; analyzes the evidence; makes a reasoned decision. If necessary, the relevant institutions are notified.

DOCUMENTATION STORAGE

All documents related to the publication process are stored in compliance with applicable legislation and the internal rules of the conference organizer.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE POLICY

It is not allowed: generating scientific results without human control; presenting AI-generated text as a fully author's contribution; using AI to create fictitious sources; manipulating images, data or results. Authors must indicate the use of AI tools when this is of significant importance for the preparation of the manuscript. The declaration should include: the tool used; the purpose of the use; the extent of participation.

EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

Editors are responsible for:

• the scientific quality of the publication;
• transparency of the editorial process;
• equal treatment of all authors;
• adherence to ethical standards.

Editorial decisions must be based solely on the scientific value of the manuscript. Editors may not:

• make decisions based on personal relationships;
• prefer authors due to institutional affiliation;
• allow political, financial or other external influences.

Editors guarantee confidentiality regarding: submitted manuscripts; the names of reviewers; communication with authors; the content of expert assessments. Editors take action in the event of: suspected plagiarism; data manipulation; falsification of authorship; unethical behavior. Where necessary, the procedures of international publication ethics organizations are followed.

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Reviewing aims to support editorial decision-making and improve the quality of scientific publications. Reviewers assess:

• scientific originality;
• methodological correctness;
• significance of results;
• clarity of presentation;
• compliance with the thematic profile of the publication.

The reviewer must:

• provide an objective assessment;
• avoid personal criticism of the author;
• indicate specific arguments;
• declare potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts are considered confidential documents. Reviewers are not allowed to:

• share the manuscript;
• use unpublished information;
• discuss the material outside the editorial procedure.

The reviewer should assess:

• topicality of the topic;
• contribution to the scientific field;
• quality of methodology;
• correctness of the analysis;
• adequacy of conclusions;
• quality of bibliography.

CORRECTIONS, RETRACTS AND EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN POLICY

Papers submitted by authors are allowed to be corrected by them in the event of:

• technical errors;
• omissions;
• inaccuracies that do not change the main results.

Retraction Applies to: proven plagiarism; falsified data; serious methodological violations; duplicate publication.

Expression of Concern Used when: there is serious doubt about a publication or the investigation has not yet been completed.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PROCEDURE

1. General Principles

The Conference Organizing Committee shall ensure a transparent, fair and impartial procedure for the consideration of complaints related to editorial decisions and the review process. All complaints shall be considered in compliance with the principles of academic ethics, confidentiality, independence of evaluation and absence of conflict of interest, in accordance with COPE good practices.

2. Right to appeal

The author has the right to file a reasoned complaint when he/she believes that:

• significant procedural violations have been committed during the review;
• there is a demonstrable conflict of interest;
• the decision is based on factual errors or misinterpretation of the content of the manuscript;
• have been violated in principles of objectivity, impartiality or academic ethics.

Complaints based solely on disagreement with the scientific judgment of the reviewers, without the presentation of substantiated arguments, will not be considered.

3. Filing an appeal

The appeal shall be submitted by e-mail to the Chairman of the Organizing Committee within 7 calendar days of receiving the notification of the editorial decision. The appeal must contain:

• identification number and title of the report;
• a specific description of the grounds for appeal;
• evidence or arguments in support of the appeal;
• a declaration that the information provided is true and complete.

4. Review of the appeal

Appeals are reviewed by the Appeals and Academic Ethics Committee appointed by the Organizing Committee. The members of the committee:

• may not have participated in the initial editorial decision or review;
• are required to declare the absence of a conflict of interest;
• review all materials under conditions of complete confidentiality.

If necessary, the Commission may:

• request opinions from the initial reviewers;
• assign an independent additional review to one or more external experts;
• request additional information from the author.

5. Deadlines

The Commission shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 working days. The final decision shall be made within 20 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. If additional independent review is necessary, the deadline may be extended, and the author shall be notified in a timely manner.

6. Possible decisions

After the review is completed, the Commission may decide:

• confirmation of the initial editorial decision;
• re-review by independent reviewers;
• amendment of the initial decision and adoption of the report;
• termination of the procedure when the complaint is inadmissible or unfounded.

All decisions shall be written motivated.

7. Finality of the decision

The decision of the Appeals and Academic Ethics Committee shall be final and shall not be subject to further appeal within the framework of the conference procedure.

8. Confidentiality

All documents, opinions and correspondence related to the appeals procedure shall be treated as confidential and shall be used solely for the purpose of considering the specific appeal. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with applicable legislation on the protection of personal data.

9. Compliance with ethical standards

The appeals and complaints procedure shall be implemented in accordance with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and established international practices for scientific publishing, ensuring equality, transparency, academic integrity and independence of the evaluation process.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

1. Editors are guided by the Editorial Board’s policy on compliance with legal requirements regarding the use of offensive language, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
2. Each paper submitted for publication in the conference proceedings is subject to plagiarism checking with the StrikePlagiarism software.
3. Editorial Board members must evaluate manuscripts on their scientific content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
4. Editorial Board members must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and representatives of the publisher.
5. Editorial Board members must not disclose the content of unpublished materials accepted as manuscripts or use them for their own research without the written consent of the authors.
6. Reviewers should treat each manuscript received for review as a confidential document.
7. The reviewer should not disclose or discuss the contents of the manuscript with any other person unless authorized by the author(s).
8. Reviewers are required to notify the editors of any significant similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published work with which they are personally familiar.
9. Reviewers should keep confidential and not use for personal gain any information or ideas obtained during the review of the submitted manuscript.
10. Reviewers should not review manuscripts when there is a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in scientific research. 

PUBLISHER'S OBLIGATIONS

1. The Publisher may not participate in decisions made by the Editorial Board regarding the publication of individual reports.
2. The Publisher guarantees that advertising, reprinting or other commercial activity related to the publication will not have an impact on editorial decisions.
3. The Publisher facilitates communication with other journals and publishers when this is beneficial to the Editorial Board or reviewers.
4. Publishers collaborate with other prominent publishers and industry associations in the process of creating standards of good practice related to issues of publication ethics.