Peer Review Guidelines

1. All materials received for publication in the journal are subject to preliminary assessment by the editor-in-chief of the journal to assess their compliance with the requirements for the of the manuscript, as well as compliance with the ethics of the journal.

2. The journal does not accept the following materials:
— articles with excess borrowing;
— abstracts (abstract reviews);
— reviews of scientific events, including with the presentation of the content of speeches and discussions;
— reviews of scientific publications;
— personalities (anniversary notes, obituaries, etc.);
— previously published in thwart scientific journal.

3. 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.

4. Materials submitted to the editorial board of the journal for publication should:
— be original;
— be relevant and have internal unity;
— contain the theoretical provisions developed by the author, either a solution to a scientific problem, or a presentation of new scientifically based solutions, the introduction of which makes a significant contribution to the development of legal science;
— be new and include the reasoning of the solutions proposed by the author, also in comparison with other known solutions;
— include information on the practical use of the scientific results obtained by the author or recommendations for the use of scientific conclusions.

5. After a preliminary assessment, the received materials are sent for independent scientific review to at least two experts. Reviewers are specialists in the subject of the article who are in no way connected with the organization of the author. Such specialists must have a Russian academic degree of candidate or doctor of sciences or similar foreign academic degrees, or be authoritative practitioners without a degree. At the discretion of the editor-in-chief, a second and additional review (by previous or new reviewers) may be carried out, including in the case of the author resubmitting the material after it has been finalized.

6. The reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial board about the existence of a conflict of interest by refusing to review, and the author of the submitted material may point out undesirable reviewers.

7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the reviewer, the author is not informed of the information 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 evaluation of:
— general scientific level of work;
— the title of the paper and its correspondence to 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;
— the structure of the work, the language and style of presentation of the material;
— compliance with the rules of scientific ethics.

The evaluation should end with briefly formulated the comments for the author of the manuscript.

10. Based on the results of scientific review, the reviewer should give one of the following recommendations:
— recommendation to publish the material in the form presented (without comments);
— recommendation on the publication of the material, provided that the author takes into account the comments of the reviewers;
— recommendation to reject the material submitted.

11. The editorial board of the journal compiles a standard questionnaire of the reviewer, which determines the structure and content of the review.

12. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of an article, the presence of a negative review is not a sufficient reason for refusing to publish an article. The final decision on the appropriateness of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board.

13. The decision on publication should be made by the editor-in-chief (depending on the length of the editorial portfolio and the timing of the review) and reported, as a rule, no later than June 30 of the current year.

Please note that the message "review deadline has passed" in the journal system does not mean that the review process has been completed. After receiving the reviews, the editorial board of the journal will write to the author about the decision made on the material within the deadline specified above.

14. Reviews are stored for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or the decision to reject the manuscript. In case of non-submission or incomplete submission of reviews, editorial and publishing preparation of publication materials is not carried out.