Peer-Review
Regulations on reviewing scientific articles, published in the scientific journal «Legal Bulletin»
1. For publication in the electronic scientific journal «Legal Bulletin» the editors accept scientific articles containing the main results of research conducted by the author / authors, scientific reviews, the deliverables of scientific events (symposiums, conferences, seminars, and so on), ratings, scientific reviews, comment.
2. The Editors reviews all of incoming corresponding to its category materials.
3. All of reviewers are experts in the subject of reviewed materials and have reviewed article theme publications for the last 3 years.
4. Received materials are recorded with indicating date, name of the author / authors, place of work, interact contacts, name of the material, with a unique registration number.
5. The editors accept the material, if it is designed in accordance with the provided requirements.
6. Please, check before sending the material for review on the "Anti-plagiarism" software. High level of borrowing detection entails rejection of the material.
7. The editors send the manuscript for review to a member / members of the Editorial Board. In case of the controversial material or article for admission of the Editorial Board member, the Editor in chief (deputy editor) sends the material for review by external reviewers.
8. The journal follows the rules of double "blind" (anonymous) review. Interaction of authors and reviewers is implemented only through the editorial staff. The editorial staff reserves the right (in agreement with the author) of reducing the volume of material and literary editing, as well as the refusal to publish (according to the review of editorial board members), if the article does not conform to the profile of the journal or it has quality problems in material presentation. Manuscripts rejected after reviewing are not examined once again. In case of article rejection the editorial board sends to the author a reasoned refusal.
9. The Editorial Board recommends using the traditional form of reviews. The review represents the relevance of the topic, the originality of its disclosure and its theoretical significance or application, the validity of the findings by the authors, correlation with well-known scientific and methodological approaches, correct using of mathematical apparatus. The editors also note the personal author / authors contribution in the decision of the designated problem, consistency and availability of presentation, correct use of the attracted resources.
10. It is given 20 days to considerate the material. Reviews are sent to the editor by e-mail address: glavred@legalbulletin.ru.
11. The editors send to copies of reviews, or a reasoned refusal the authors of the submissions on request, and also binds to send copies of reviews to the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science in case of admission the corresponding request.
12. Reviews are stored in the Editors for 5 years.
13. After receiving the necessary review, the Editorial board takes the final decision about the publication or refusing to publish materials. Editors informs the authors about the decision on request. Editor in chief (deputy editor) coordinates the work of editors, signs the current issue for printing and gives permission to publish online.
14. If the Editors recommends finishing off the material, The Board sends reviewers to the author / authors without referees data.
15. The modified article sends for review together with its original version as soon as possible. Article delayed for more than three months or submitted for finishing off is regarded as a new material.
16. Produced and archived reviews can be submitted to the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science on expert advice request.
17. If it is necessary, The Editorial Board has the right to involve for reviewing more domestic and foreign experts, the scientific status corresponding to that position.
18. Reviewed materials that had been rejected can not be re-examined. Other articles of the renounced authors are accepted for consideration on common grounds.
19. In the case of a negative assessment to the reviewed material, and inappropriate recommendations for publication in the journal reviewers give a detailed justification of their own findings.
20. In case of disagreement with the reviewer opinion, the author has the right to apply to the Editor with the reasoned request to direct his manuscript for review by another reviewer. In this case, the Editorial Board sends the manuscript for re-review, or gives a reasoned refusal to the author.
21. The Editorial Board does not consider manuscripts, previously published in other scientific journals.
22. The fee for the review is not charged.