Review procedure

In order to comply with ethical standards and principles of academic decency, following a review procedure is mandatory for all articles submitted to the Journal of International Legal Communication.

The objective of the review is to facilitate the strict selection of copyright manuscripts for publishing and making specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, the determination of its compliance with the requirements of the journal and involves a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of article materials.

Review principles

The review process in the Journal of International Legal Communication is based on the following principles:

– correctness and ethics of scientific publications. The editors of the Journal of International Legal Communication provide suitable means to ensure that the review procedure supports the processes of quality improving of scientific researches, and also takes into account the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), considers the experience and follows the best practices of leading editorial and scientific communities, helps to overcome bias and to increase objectivity during the considering and publishing of submitted articles;

– anonymity. The editors use a double-blind peer review in their work. Authors are not informed about the names of the reviewers, reviewers are not informed about the names of the authors. The interaction between the reviewers and the authors is carried out only through the authorized members of the Editorial Board. The editorial staff shall not disclose to anyone any information related to the manuscript (content, review process, critical remarks of the reviewers, final decision), except for the members of the editorial board of the journal, the Author(s) and the reviewers themselves. Reviews are submitted only to authorized members of the editorial board of the journal and to the Author(s);

– openness. The reviewing processes are transparent and are carried out in the general rules for all authors and reviewers that are openly accessible on this site. The editors of the Journal of International Legal Communication provides open access (according to the policy of Open Access) to the scientific articles which have been reviewed, published and are set out on the website of the Journal of International Legal Communication.

Review process

The process of reviewing and considering of the materials of scientific articles is provided in the «Journal of International Legal Communication» according to the following rules:

  1. Manuscripts of scientific articles, which come to the editors, are initially controlled on compliance with all formal requirements to the subject, scientific profile, content, structure, volume and order of design according to the Terms of Publication that are published on the “Journal of International Legal Communication” website. In case of non-compliance with formal requirements, the materials of the articles can be immediately returned to the authors for revision in order to deliver them in proper condition.
  2. Next, the manuscript of the article is checked for plagiarism.
  3. After the initial check of the article manuscript is completed and after the plagiarism control is passed, the manuscript is sent for review.
  4. In the «Journal of International Legal Communication» a double-blind peer review (anonymous) is applied:
    – author’s/authors’ personal data is not disclosed to the reviewer;
    – author/authors are not informed about the personal data of the reviewer.
  5. The reviewer estimates:
    – the urgency and importance of the scientific problem raised in the article, the compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the journal;
    – the consistency, and the logic, the level of language proficiency when presenting the material of the article;
    – the conformity of the contents of the manuscript with its title, with selected approaches to the study and with the goals and objectives;
    – the validity of conclusions based on the results of the research and the degree of their scientific novelty;
    – the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
    – the reliability, relevance of the data used and of the information sources;
    – the author’s/authors’ compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources;
    – the necessary element of the review is the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s/authors’ personal contribution to the solving of the considered problem;
    – it is advisable to note in the review the advantages and disadvantages found in the manuscript of the article, in order to provide the author with recommendations for improvement, deepening of the study on the topic or disclosing of new aspects of the considered scientific problem.
  6. Based on the results of an expert evaluation of scientific article, the reviewer may:
    – recommend the article to publication as-is;
    – recommend the article to publication after insignificant rework;
    – recommend the article to publication after radical rework;
    – not to recommend the article to publication.
  7. If the reviewer recommends the article to publication after its revision by the author according to the comments and proposals, the reviewer must justify the reason for such a decision. To prepare the results of the review, the editor of the «Journal of International Legal Communication» uses the standard form of the review.
  8. Scientific articles may be referred for re-review after their radical revision, conducted on recommendations of the reviewer.
  9. In the case of two conflicting reviews, the editor may refer the text to a third external expert for evaluation, formulate additional comments and guidelines for the Author, or not allow the article to be published. Articles may be referred, if necessary, to additional review in case of acute discussion concerning the scientific results expressed in the manuscript.
  10. In case of rejection of the publication of the article, the editors send the author a reasoned refusal.
  11. Each peer-reviewed article is covered by a confidentiality clause with respect to all content contained therein.