General provisions

1.1. The Journal accepts and reviews only manuscripts submitted via e-mail

1.2. All submissions are subject to mandatory initial screening and double blind peer review.

1.3. The decision about acceptance or rejection of manuscript is made, as usual, not earlier than in two months from the date of its submission to the Journal’s e-mail and is disclosed to the author thereupon.

1.4. The manuscript might be rejected by the Journal’s Chief Editor:

  • if the author is unavailable for more than thirty days;
  • upon consideration of peer review and the author’s response to the referees.

1.5. Positive peer-review’ reports do not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript.


Registration and initial screening

2.1. Registration and initial screening of manuscript is carried out within up to seven days from the date of submission.

2.2. The Board Secretary registers submitted manuscript, specifying the date of its submission.

2.3. The Board Secretary screens submitted manuscript for its compliance with the Pravovedenie Manuscript Submission Guidelines and Pravovedenie Style Guidelines, making sure that length and structure of the manuscript is appropriate; the list of references, keywords and abstracts in English and Russian are provided; the formatting of the manuscript fits the requirements; the author’s details and contact information are included, etc.

2.4. If a manuscript fails to comply with the Pravovedenie Manuscript Submission Guidelines and Pravovedenie Style Guidelines, it is returned to the author for revision.

2.5. Once the manuscript has been registered and screened, the Board Secretary deletes the author’s details from the file of submission and forwards it for peer review.


Peer review

3.1. All manuscripts cleared by the initial screening are subject to impartial external double blind peer review by no less than two referees, whose area of expertise is as close as possible to the subject of the submitted manuscript.

3.2. As a general rule the external peer reviewers might be selected among acknowledged experts, who have a doctoral degree and publications issued over the last three years on the subject field relevant to the manuscript’s topic.

3.3. The peer reviewer is expected to review the manuscript within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of materials from the Board Secretary.

3.4. The peer reviewer is obliged to follow publication ethics of the Journal.

3.5. Peer reviewing is double blind, which means that the author’s identity is not revealed to the reviewer and vice versa.

3.6. The peer reviewer provides his/her feedback by completing the standard form, which contains the questions requiring grounded and well-reasoned replies and provides the guidelines of academic peer reviewing, conditions of confidentiality, etc.

3.7. Upon reviewing manuscript, the peer reviewer provides detailed and substantiated responses to the following questions:

  • Are main conclusions of the manuscript novel (original) in their content and/or interpretation? If yes, what is new and/or original about them?
  • How does the manuscript correlate with the existent scholarship and current research in the relevant subject field?
  • Is there any evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct in the manuscript?
  • Is the text of the manuscript coherent and clear?
  • Does the structure of the manuscript fit the Journal’s guidelines? Is the language and style appropriate, is the terminology used correctly? Are the tables, charts, figures, etc. illustrative? Do the footnotes, references, and citations of the published and unpublished primary sources conform to the Journal’s guidelines?
  • Would the reviewed manuscript be of interest to the readers of the Journal? If yes, what would make the readers interested?

3.8. Based on the results of the manuscript evaluation, the peer reviewer  recommends one of the following options:

  • to accept the manuscript for publication in its original form (without any revisions);
  • to accept the manuscript for publication once the author has checked the revisions suggested by the referee (the author decides if to apply the revisions or not);
  • to accept the manuscript for publication once the reviewers’ revisions are implemented;
  • to reject the manuscript with the option of resubmission;
  • to reject the manuscript without the option of resubmission.

3.9. The peer reviewer completes the standard form, prints it out, signs it, certifies it by seal (or print the form on the letterhead of the referee’s institution), and sends it to the Board Secretary as a .doc file (without signature and seal) and as a .pdf file (with signature and seal).

3.10. By decision of the Chief Editor, the manuscript may be sent for additional revision, including the cases of resubmission of the revised manuscript.

3.11. Basing upon the recommendations of the peer review, the Board Secretary forwards to the author extracts from reviews, the consolidated list of referees’ criticisms and suggestions, and recommends the author consider these corrections while revising the manuscript.

3.12. The author revises the manuscript according to the referees’ comments and/or provides a detailed response to the referees. The author prints out and signs his/her report and forwards it to the Board Secretary as a .pdf file.

3.13. If the author forwards the revised manuscript more one month from the date of submission of referees’ reports, the manuscript is regarded as submitted anew.


Decision for accept for publication or reject

4.1. In deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript, the Chief Editor considers the revised text of the manuscript, peer reviewers’ reports, and the author’s responses.

4.2. Within one week, the Board Secretary informs the author of the Chief Editor’s decision to accept the manuscript or sends him/her substantiated rejection letter.