1. Manuscripts are admitted only if all the requirements given at the journal website and in the journal’s current issues are met. Manuscripts formatted improperly are neither considered nor returned.
  2. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial are subject to revision. "Siberian Law Review" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.  
  3. The editor-in-chief determines if the article complies with the journal’s themes, requirements for formatting and submits it for reviewing.
  4. All the articles which are in accordance with the journal’s themes and requirements are subject to revision.  
  5. Authoritative scholars (Doctors and Candidates of sciences) working in the field the article covers as well as invited specialists can review the articles.
  6. The reviewer examines the submitted article and sends to the editorial (by e-mail, post, personally) the review or motivated rejection to review the article.
  7. The review shall estimate:
    • relevance of the theme, science level, terminology, structure of the manuscript;
    • readiness of the manuscript to be submitted for publishing with regard to language and style, conformity of the content of the article with its title and requirements for formatting;
    • scientific character of explaining the material, conformity of the author’s methods, recommendations and research results with the current achievements in science and practice;
    • logics in describing the material and structuring of the submitted article.
  8. In his statement the reviewer makes a general conclusion: to recommend the article for publishing; to recommend the article for publishing after elaborating it with page proofs considered; not to recommend the article for publishing. If after the article has been elaborated, with page proofs being considered, the reviewer does not recommend it or does not recommend it from the very beginning, the review should contain the reasons for making such a decision.
  9. The reviewer reserves the right to persuade the author to change and detail the manuscript which is further sent (via the journal’s editorial) to the author for elaboration. In this case the date of receiving the article by the editorial is the date of submitting the article after enhancement. The improved article is submitted for review for the second time.
  10. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their purposes without the author’s prior permission.
  11. After receiving the review the successive meeting of the editorial board considers the received reviews and makes a final decision on publishing or rejecting the articles.
  12. The authors whose manuscripts have been rejected receive reasonable motives.
  13. If the author disagrees with the reviewer, the editorial board can submit the manuscript for additional review.
  14. If required in a written form, the review is returned to the author and to the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK) of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.
  15. The editorial neither keeps nor returns the manuscripts not accepted for publishing.