Везде

Provision on peer-reviewing

1. General provisions

1.1. Peer-reviewing means the procedure of assessing the main results of the research reflected in authors’ articles, reviews and another materials (hereinafter – articles) submitted for publication in “Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law” (hereinafter – the Journal), before publication. The peer-reviewing is carried out by scholars and specialists of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as recognized experts from other organizations.

1.2. The Journal reviews all materials that come to the editorial board, corresponding to the subject of the journal, for the purpose of their expert evaluation. The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, analysis of strengths and weaknesses of submitted article.

1.3. Reviewing is aimed to increase the scientific level of the materials published in the Journal and to ensure the quality of the article in accordance with the international standadrds adopted in the reference databases of scientific citation.

1.4. Members of the editorial office of the Journal, as well as external reviewers with a doctoral or Ph.D. degree (or its foreign equivalent), having sufficient experience in scientific work in the field stated in the article and familiar with the requirements imposed by the editorial board on the published materials are involved in the reviewing process. All reviewers have had publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.

1.5. As a rule, the reviewer should not work in the same organization as the author(s) of the article. The editorial board strives to eliminate “conflicts of interest” between authors and reviewers.

1.6. The length of the review is not regulated, but, as a rule, should fit into 1-2 pages of computer typing (with a font size of 12 and line spacing of 1).

1.7. All authors are warned about the review procedure when a manuscript is received by the editorial board. All manuscripts undergo a double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the author of the manuscript, the author of the manuscript does not know the reviewer).

1.8. The number of reviews is determined by the editorial council. If the first reviewer's review is unquestionably positive, the editorial council may decide that the procedure is sufficient to accept the material for publication. In the case of a negative review or serious criticism of the article by the reviewer, the work is usually sent for additional reviewing. More than one reviewer is necessarily appointed in cases where the article is performed at the “junction” of sciences or scientific fields.

1.9. The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editorial council, taking into account the review(s) received, as well as the reasoned response of the author(s) of the article.

1.10. If the review is positive, the editorial office sends a copy to the author, indicating the date of publication. Authors who are denied the publication of the article are sent a reasoned refusal.

1.11. Original reviews or their electronic copies are stored in the editorial office for five years from the date of the reviewer's signature.


2. Peer-review procedure

2.1. Reviewing is organized by the deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. The choice of expert reviewers is the responsibility of the editorial council. The reviewer is appointed depending on his or her specialization and qualifications, taking into account the topic of the scientific article submitted to the editorial board.

2.2. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the results of intellectual activity, subject to legal protection, and are classified as non-public information.

2.3. All manuscripts undergo double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the author of the manuscript, the author of the manuscript does not know the reviewer).

2.4. Reviewing is carried out within 30 days.

2.5. The review reflects the following issues:

  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • whether the article corresponds to the modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought;
  • whether there is scientific novelty in the article under consideration;
  • whether the article is accessible to the readers to whom it is addressed, in terms of language, style, arrangement of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, etc;
  • whether it is advisable to publish the article in light of previously published literature on the subject;
  • what exactly are the positive aspects as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
  • whether the metadata to the article is a full informative reflection of the article content and whether they meet the requirements for the metadata adopted in the Journal;
  • whether the abstract of the article can serve to confirm the scientific value of the material submitted for review and attract readers to the problem in question, to participate in further discussion;
  • the conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article in the Journal: "recommended" (positive review), "recommended subject to correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer" (revision) or "not recommended" (negative review).

2.6. The review is sent by the editorial board to the author's e-mail address. The author is not given information about the reviewer.

2.7. If the authors agree with the reviewer's comments, they have the right to make changes and resubmit the article. Authors are also encouraged to submit a written response to the reviewer's comments. In this case the procedure of reviewing is repeated. The date of receipt of the article in the editorial office is the date of its last submission after editing.

2.8. If the reviewer's comments are insignificant and require only editorial corrections, and with the consent of the authors, a decision can be made to accept the article for publication without additional author's revision.

2.9. In the case of motivated disagreement of the author with the reviewer's opinion, the editorial board decides on the publication of the article.

2.10. The review is considered by the editorial board, which makes one of its decisions:

  • accept the article for publication without corrections;
  • send the article for additional reviewing;
  • return the article to the author for correction according to the reviewer's comments;
  • to reject the article (with obligatory argumentation).

To authors