Peer Review Guidelines
1. The decision on publication should be made by the editor-in-chief (depending on the length of the editorial portfolio and the terms of review) and reported, as a rule:
For authors of Issue 1 - no later than October 15
For authors of Issue 2 - no later than January 15
For authors of Issue 3 - no later than April 15
For authors of Issue 4 - no later than July 15
We draw the attention of the authors that the message "the review period has passed" in the journal system does not mean the end of the review process. After receiving the reviews, the editorial board of the journal will write to the author about the decision taken on the material within the time indicated above.
2. All materials received for publication in the journal are subject to a preliminary assessment by the editor-in-chief of the journal in terms of their compliance with the requirements for manuscript formatting, as well as compliance with the ethics of authorship.
3. As usual, the journal publishes materials in priority areas listed in the Editorial Policy.
The journal does not accept the following materials:
• scientific articles on the theory and history of law and state (with the exception of articles written using empirical methods of social and humanitarian sciences);
• abstracts (abstract reviews);
• reviews of scientific events, including outlining the content of speeches and discussions;
• reviews of scientific publications.
4. The author is obliged to notify the Editorial Board of the journal about the acceptance for publication of the submitted material in another scientific publication.
5. After a preliminary assessment, the submitted materials are sent for independent scientific review by at least two specialists.Reviewers are independent of the authors, i.e. not affiliated with the same institution. For reviewing, only experts on the subject of the article who are external to the author are involved. Such specialists must have a Russian academic degree of candidate or doctor of science or similar foreign academic degrees, or be reputable practitioners without an academic degree. By the decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal, repeated and additional reviewing (by previous or new reviewers) can be carried out, including in the case of repeated submission by the author of the material after its revision.
6. The reviewer is obliged to notify the editors of the presence of a conflict of interest by refusing to review, and the author of the submitted material may point to unwanted reviewers.
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the reviewer, the author is not informed about the reviewer.
8. Based on the results of scientific review, the author is sent a consolidated list of comments and suggestions of scientific reviewers, with a recommendation to take them into account when finalizing the material and determining the conditions for publishing the material.
9. Scientific review of manuscripts of articles should be expressed in the assessment of the
general scientific level of the work:
• title and its compliance with the content of the article;
• relevance of the topic;
• scientific and informational novelty (originality) of the material;
• theoretical and practical significance of the presented conclusions;
• structure of work, language, and style of presentation of the material;
• compliance with the rules of scientific ethics.
The assessment should end with briefly formulated wishes and/or comments addressed to the author of the manuscript.
10. Scientific review of manuscripts of other materials (scientific and practical conclusions, comments, reviews, etc.) should be expressed in the assessment of:
• the general level of work;
• name and its correspondence to the content of the material;
• the relevance of the topic;
• informational novelty (originality) of the material;
• the validity of the generalizations made, their theoretical and (or) practical significance;
• structure of work, language, and style of presentation;
• compliance with the rules of scientific ethics;
• compliance with the reader's interests.
The assessment should end with briefly formulated wishes and/or comments addressed to the author of the manuscript.
11. Based on the results of the scientific review, the reviewer should give one of the following recommendations:
• recommendation to publish the material as presented (no comments);
• a recommendation to publish the material, provided that the author takes into account the comments of the reviewers;
• recommendation to reject the submitted material.
12. The editorial board of the journal draws up a standard reviewer's questionnaire, which determines the structure and content of the review.
13. Materials submitted to the editorial board of the journal for publication must:
have an author's character;
• be relevant and have inner unity;
• contain the theoretical provisions developed by the author, or the solution of a scientific problem, or the presentation of new scientifically grounded solutions, the implementation of which makes a significant contribution to the development of legal science;
• differ in the novelty and argumentation of the solutions proposed by the author, including in comparison with other well-known solutions;
• include information on the practical use of scientific results obtained by the author or recommendations for the use of scientific findings.
14. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article, the presence of a negative review is not a sufficient reason for refusing to publish the article. The final decision on the expediency of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board.
15. Reviews are stored for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or the decision to reject the manuscript. In case of failure to submit or incomplete submission of reviews, editorial and publishing preparation of the issue materials is not carried out.
