Peer-Review

  1. All materials submitted for publication in the journal, before reviewing, go through the initial review process, during which they are checked for compliance with formal requirements. Manuscripts of articles are accepted only if they comply with the requirements posted on the journal website and in the current issues of the journal. Manuscripts executed in violation of the requirements are not considered and are not returned, about which the author receives a corresponding notification.
  2. All manuscripts received by the editorial board and passed the initial selection are subject to mandatory scientific review and approval by the editorial board. The type of peer-reviewed manuscripts of scientific articles is a two-way “blind” peer-review. The editorial board of the Siberian Legal Review magazine, when considering the article, checks the material using the Anti-Plagiarism system. In the event that numerous borrowings are discovered, the editors act in accordance with the rules of COPE.
  3. The editor-in-chief determines the correspondence of the article to the journal profile, design requirements and sends it for review within five business days from the date of completion of the acceptance of materials in the current issue of the journal.
  4. All articles corresponding to the journal profile and meeting the requirements for the design of scientific articles are subject to peer review.
  5. Scientists (doctors, candidates of sciences) who have recognized authority and work in the field of knowledge, which includes the content of the manuscript, are involved in the review, and attracted experts (Russian and / or foreign) can also act as reviewers.
  6. The reviewer considers the submitted article within 14 working days from the date of receipt and sends the review (or e-mail, in person) a review or a reasoned refusal.
  7. In the review should be evaluated:
    - relevance of the topic, scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript;
    - the readiness of the manuscript for publication in relation to language and style, the correspondence of the content of the article to its name, design requirements;
    - the scientific nature of the presentation of the material, the correspondence of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author to the modern achievements of science and practice;
    - The logic of the presentation of the material and the structure of the submitted article.
  8. In the conclusion of the review, a general conclusion is made:
    A. “Recommend an article for publication” - if the manuscript does not contain errors, meets the requirements of relevance and originality of scientific research. In this case, the manuscript is included in the list of alleged publications in the journal (“editorial portfolio”).
    B. “Recommend for publication after revision, taking into account the comments” - the reviewer has the right to indicate the need for additions and clarifications to the manuscript, which is then sent (through the editorial board of the journal) to the author for revision, indicating the period during which the author can eliminate the comments of the reviewer. The author, within 24 hours, from the moment of receiving information on the results of the review, must notify the editorial office of one of his decisions: consent to modify the article within the prescribed period (refusal to modify the article). In the case of a positive decision by the author to finalize the article, the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editor is the date of return of the final manuscript. The article processed by the author is sent for review again. If the reviewer retains substantial comments on the article, it is rejected by the decision of the editorial board without the right of further development.
    C. “Do not recommend an article for publication” - in this case, the article is either rejected by decision of the editorial board or sent for re-review within three business days from the date the decision was made by the editorial board, which is possible only once for this article.
  9. If the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication after revision taking into account the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
  10. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their needs without the consent of the author.
  11. After the review is received by the editorial staff at the next meeting of the editorial board, the question of the received reviews is considered and a decision is made to publish or refuse to publish articles. The final decision on publication is made on the basis of a positive review and (or) assessment of the content of the manuscript of a scientific article by the editor-in-chief of the journal, based on the results of its discussion for compliance with all requirements at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal.
  12. Authors who are denied the publication of manuscripts are sent a reasoned refusal.
  13. In case of disagreement of the author with the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript, by decision of the editorial board, may be sent for a second (additional) review.
  14. A copy of the review is provided to the author, and a copy of the review is provided upon request of the Higher Attestation Commission at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.
  15. The editors do not store or return manuscripts not accepted for publication.