1.1. Provision on reviewing (hereinafter - Provision) regulates the peer-review procedure of author manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal “The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice” (hereinafter – Journal).
1.2. Reviewing of article manuscripts at the editorial board of the Journal is accomplished with the objective to provide and maintain the high level of scientific and theoretical edition and to select the most valuable and urgent works for publication.
1.3. In the Provision, the following principle terms are used:
Editor-in-chief is a person who heads the editorial staff and makes final decisions concerning production and output of the Journal.
Editorial board is a consultative body consisting of a group of reputable experts that assists Editor-in-chief to select, prepare and evaluate articles for publication.
Editorial council is an advice body aimed to control the high-level quality of the Journal published, to assist editing and publishing activity management, its development and improvement.
Author is a physical person who produced the article manuscript based on the result of scientific research carried out.
Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the Journal and providing scientific expertise of author materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Reviewing is the process of examination of a scientific article by scientists, specialists in the relevant field, and revelation of its advantages and drawbacks in order to make a decision on the urgency of the manuscript publication in the Journal.
2. Reviewing Procedure
2.1 All articles submitted to the editorial board of the Journal are subject to independent reviewing.
2.2 The date of sending the article by means of filling out the site electronic form is considered to be the date of the article admission by the Journal editorial board.
2.3 The executive secretary informs the authors about the admission of the article, the results of its consideration and reviewing via automatic e-mail notification.
2.4 After the scientific article manuscript is accepted by the Journal editorial board it is examined by the executive secretary on the subject of its compliance with the Journal requirements, general provisions of “Rules of article writing” (hereinafter - Rules), and from the point of author ethics view.
2.5 If materials for publication do not meet formal requirements, the article is not permitted for publication and the author is notified automatically.
2.6 The manuscript meeting formal requirements is submitted to the double peer review, when the reviewer does not know the author’s name and the author does not know the reviewer’s name.
2.7 The review period is 1 month.
2.8 In case the article is submitted without adherence to one or more editorial criteria, the reviewer makes decision on revising the article and recommends the author to make corrections.
2.9 The author of the article should make all necessary corrections no later than 14 calendar days after receiving the notification and return the updated text to the editorial board via e-mail.
To the revised manuscript, the author should add a letter explaining all the changes made to the article (highlighting them in the text with a different colour). Updated version of the article is again submitted to the reviewer. The date of the revised article arrival to the editorial board is considered to be the date of the article admission by the editorial board.
2.10 Manuscripts revised by the author are again submitted to the same reviewer who criticized the article or to another one appointed by the Editor–in– chief.
2.11 Articles of the authors who did not remove reviewer’s constructive remarks or did not give a reasoned refutation are not accepted to publication.
2.12 In case of negative conclusion concerning the manuscript or its updated version, at the Editor-in-chief’s decision, the article is rejected with the compulsory notification of the author about the reasons for this decision.
2.13 The Journal editorial board sends copies of the author’s article review or motivated refusal as well as takes responsibility to send review copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if the corresponding request comes to the Journal editorial board.
3. Requirements to Reviewers
3.1 Manuscript reviewing is conducted by the Journal editorial board members or editorial council members, being authoritative experts in the relevant field of topics reviewed and having the scientific specialization associated with the article topic most. In order to review article manuscripts external reviewers may be engaged provided they have deep professional knowledge and work experience in the particular scientific field.
3.2 The reviewer cannot be the co-author of the article presented for review or the scientific supervisor of the author.
3.3 If a reviewer concludes that he or she is not an expert in the subject of the presented article or is not able to prepare the article review on time, they must inform the Editor-in-chief and decline the review.
3.4 When submitting the article to review, the reviewer is notified that the article is the intellectual property of the author and the subject of confidential information, which shall not be discussed with anyone.
4. Review Structure and Contents
4.1 The review is performed in the written form and signed by the reviewer.
4.2 The typical review structure is approved by the editorial council and contains:
1. Expert evaluation of:
– urgency of the topic of the manuscript submitted for reviewing;
– scientific and informational novelty (initial novelty) of the material;
– personal extent and contribution of the author to obtaining results of scientific research;
– theoretical and practical significance of conclusions presented.
2. Motivated statement on the article drawbacks and indication what error corrections shall be made by the author.
3. Conclusions about the possibility of the article publication or its publication after the relevant error correction, or the rejection of the manuscript.
4. Scanned copy of review without reviewer’s personal data is notified to the author via e-mail.
5. Order of Argument Settlement
5.1 The author has the right not to agree with the reviewer’s remarks and give response to editorial board in the form of a covering letter explaining what remarks and why were not accepted.
5.2 In case of argument, the editorial board can make a decision to direct the article for additional reviewing by another expert on the topic of the article.
5.3 According to the results of additional reviewing, the Journal Editor-in-chief makes a final decision either to publish the article, or to reject it. The reasons for rejection may be both essential drawbacks of the research conducted and essential drawbacks in the article text itself.
6. Closing Provisions
6.1 After the Journal Editor-in-chief makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the executive secretary informs the author about the decision made via automatic e-mail notification.
6.2 The order of articles publication is determined by their registration date of submission to the editorial board. Works devoted to especially urgent problems of science, manuscripts of foreign authors written in English as well as articles containing completely new information may be published out of queue at the request of the editorial board.
6.3 Reviews are kept in the Journal for at least 5 years. Copies of reviews may be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request by the editorial board.