Reviewer Guidelines

1. Before sending the scientific paper to experts in the field for peer review the executive editor screens the manuscript, appraises its overall scientific quality and, if necessary, asks the author to restructure and modify the paper or submit another paper to the editorial board.

2. All scientific papers submitted to the journal undergo peer review.

3. The goal of peer review is to maintain or enhance the quality and significance of the article by scientific editing of the text and providing suggestions for its improvement.

4. Outside expert (who is not an employee of the publisher) is invited to review the scientific manuscript.

5. Selecting reviewers, dispute resolution, consideration of declining the invitation to review a manuscript, preventing conflict of interests and reviewing itself are carried out according to the requirements of publication ethics.

6. The reviewer is not aware of the author’s identity, reviewer’s identity is not shared with the author (double blind peer review). Such information can be provided upon the request of the named persons after conducting peer review and submission of the review to the editorial board.



Requirements for the Reviewer

1. The editorial board welcomes the interest of any author, reader, another person to act as a reviewer, provided that he (she) meets the requirements.

2. To review scientific papers, the person should express his (her) willingness and provide personal information and the information concerning his (her) academic qualifications to the executive editor of the journal.

3. A qualified expert having academic degree, whose scientific qualification and research experience enable to provide competent evaluation of the manuscript, can be invited to review the scientific paper.

4. The editorial board of the journal identifies appropriate reviewer. The reviewer having conducted the initial review performs the second review and controls the author’s revision.


  Evaluation Rules

1. Evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript, the reviewer establishes its accordance with: the journal policy and publication ethics (regarding the author); the scope of the journal, one of the sections of the journal and scientific specialty.

2. The subject of the reviewer’s evaluation should be:

  • topicality, importance, originality, degree of scientific problem elaboration and novelty of the research;
  • logical coherence and literacy of the presentation of the considered issues;
  • scientific quality of the paper (research methodology, problem statement, analysis of scientific views, validity and significance of conclusions and proposals, the degree of author’s originality in problem solving, etc.);
  • availability of the necessary tools (references to the legislation, acts of the official interpretation of law, law enforcement practice materials, scientific literature and other data);
  • errors, inaccuracies, misleading statements, insufficiently substantiated or controversial provisions, comments on certain issues or the whole paper with indication of the pages of the reviewed scientific paper;
  • other elements at the reviewer’s discretion;
  • conclusion about compliance of the scientific paper with the requirements, the need for its revision, acceptance for publication.

3. By prior agreement with the editorial board the reviewer can conduct scientific editing of the text of the article.

4. The review is printed on a special form, signed and forwarded to the editorial board by the reviewer for recording and storage.

5. The print versions of the reviews are stored by the publisher within five years.


Terms of reviewing and the author’s revision

1. The editorial board sends the submitted scientific paper previously examined by the executive editor for peer review within 15 days of submission.

2. The peer review is performed within 15 days of the manuscript’s submission to the reviewer. The review should be completed within the expected time frame.

3. The author may not agree with the certain reviewer’s comments and recommendations. In this case he (she) has to prepare the reasoned objections.

4. The author’s revision of the scientific paper (including preparation of the reasoned objections) is carried out within 30 days after sending the review to the author.


Decision on the publication

1. The author’s wish and ability to take into account the reasonable comments provided by the reviewer are considered when making the decision on the publication of the scientific paper.

2. Following the peer review, the editorial board makes a decision:

  • to accept the scientific paper for publication;
  • to accept the scientific paper with revisions;
  • to reject the scientific paper.

3. The decision is communicated to the author via email. The decision on the revision or rejection of the scientific paper should be reasoned.