Peer Review

The Journal Review System

1. All articles submitted to the editors of Legal Concept = Pravovaya paradigma undergo peer review.

2. The executive editor checks the relevance of the submitted article to the journal’s scope and content, the requirements for the submitted article and handles it over to the editorial board, which evaluates the scientific value of the manuscript.

3. If the submitted article meets the aforementioned criteria, the Editor-in-Chief appoints a reviewer who can evaluate professionally the submitted article and who shares similar research interests.

4. Review process is external. The reviewer cannot be represented by the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed manuscripts, as well as an employee of the organization where they are affiliated.

5. The review period is three weeks.

6. There is a “double blind” review system for the manuscript. The submitted article is assigned to the reviewers without identifying the author’s names and information about him/her, reviewers’ names and their institutional affiliations are not provided to the author.

7. The reviewer evaluates the topicality and scientific novelty of the research results submitted, their theoretical and practical significance, references to data in other papers. On the basis of the analysis the reviewer provides the editor with an overall recommendation:

a) the article is accepted

b) the article needs revisions in accordance with the reviewer’s observations

с) the article is rejected (mentioning the reasons).

8. The author of the submitted article is given an opportunity to read the text of the review which is e-mailed to the author and the expert remains anonymous.

If the reviewer recommends major or minor revisions, the editor sends a decision letter to the author suggesting that recommendations should be accepted for a revised variant of the article or rejected argumentatively.

.The list of reviewer’s recommendations that must be accepted by the author:

- the absence of references;

- material reduplication (publishing the material or its major part in other journals)

- the absence or scientific uncertainty based on unambiguous findings;

- the absence of the abstract, key words and other obligatory parts within the structure of the article.

9. If the article is rejected in case of a negative review, the information containing corresponding motivation comments is e-mailed to the author.

10. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board taking into consideration the reviewer’s recommendations, scientific significance of the paper and its correspondence to the journal content. The rejected article is not resubmitted by the editorial team.

11. The editorial board’s decision on publication made, the executive editor informs the author about the adopted decision and states the date of publication. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for three years.


Appendix 1

The procedure of appeal against the editorial board’s decision

The author has the right to appeal against the editorial board’s decision in case of the rejection of the article or the necessity to make revisions in accordance with the reviewer’s advice. In such cases the author can challenge the decision with reasonable argument addressing the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief should be able to justify the prompt response and ensure to take the complaint further. At the concerned Editor’s discretion, the article will be forwarded to additional reviewers  or the author will be informed about the correctness of the reviewers’ critical comments and the necessity to make corresponding revisions.

The article is rejected without the right to resubmission in case of proved plagiarism or fabrication results.