1. All manuscripts submitted to the Legal Studies journal are registered as of the date of their receipt by the Editorial Board.
  2. The review time depends on the need to ensure the most objective assessment possible. The written review shall be provided within 20 days following the Editorial Board’s request.
  3. The technical screening of the manuscripts is performed by the Managing Secretary no later than five days since the date of receipt. At this stage, the manuscripts are evaluated against formal criteria (including formatting requirements) and checked for compliance with intellectual property law.
  4. The manuscripts accepted for publication shall contain original research in topical issues, fall within the journal’s scope, and comply with the publication policy and other requirements.
  5. The author(s) of manuscripts rejected during technical screening will receive a written notice substantiating the reason for rejection.
  6. The manuscripts conforming with technical requirements will be sent out for peer review to at least two experts in the field. The peer reviewers will deal with anonymized papers. Similarly, the author(s) will not know who the reviewers are.
  7. The reviewers will possess a candidate of science (kandidat nauk) or doctor of science (doktor nauk) degree or a foreign equivalent and have articles falling within the journal’s scope published in the recent three years. At least one of the peer reviewers will not be an employee of St. Petersburg State University.
  8. The author(s) of manuscripts receiving a negative review are either provided with a substantiated rejection or advised to introduce changes to their articles. In the latter case, the author(s) will received a summary of the reviewers’ and the Editor-in-Chief’s comments and recommendations along with the conditions the author(s) need to meet in order to have the article published. The manuscripts revised by the author(s) will be subject to a second review by the same or different peer reviewers.
  9. The peer reviewers will provide a substantiated evaluation of the following: the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript; the title’s correlation with the manuscript’s content; the relevance and timeliness of the issues discussed; the scientific and informational novelty of the material; the level of scientific argumentation; theoretical and practical relevance of the conclusions; the manuscript’s structure, language, style and formatting; conformity with research ethics; and relevance to the journal’s audience. The evaluation will contain succinct recommendations and/or comments addressed to the author(s).
  10. The peer reviewers will provide their evaluation with one of the following conclusions: ‘recommended for publication, no revision required’ (no comments/remarks); ‘recommended for publication, revision advisable’ (the author(s) might, at their discretion, introduce changes to the manuscript based on the reviewers’ remarks/comments); ‘recommended for publication, revision required’ (the author(s) shall revise the manuscript based on the reviewers’ remarks/comments); ‘manuscript rejected, resubmission allowed’; ‘manuscript rejected, no resubmission allowed’. The author(s) can revise the manuscript twice at the most. If the author(s) provide the revised manuscript four months after the review is sent to them by the Editorial Board (or later), this will be considered a new submission.
  11. The Editorial Board will provide reviewers with a template that sets forth the structure and content of a review. The review will consist of two parts. The first part will be completed according to Clause 9, the second one, to Clause 10 hereof. Should the material require revision, the author(s) will receive a summary of remarks and/or comments from the first part.
  12. The Editorial Board will ensure the anonymity of all parties as well as confidentiality of any materials submitted for peer review. The reviewers will undertake, in writing, to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript’s content, the fact of its creation, and any other related information made available to them. The reviewers will not discuss the manuscript under review with any third person. The reviewers will not make any use of the manuscript or cite it prior to publication.
  13. The following manuscripts will be rejected:
    • manuscripts either published earlier or submitted for publication to another publisher (even with some formal changes);
    • manuscripts that do not fall within the journal’s scope and do not conform to the requirements (including formatting requirements);
    • manuscripts that contain plagiarism.
  14. The decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the peer review and the editorial policy. The reviewers’ positive response alone is not sufficient for a positive decision on publication.
  15. The author(s) will be notified once a positive decision is made. The material accepted for publication is then referred to the editor. The particular issue for publication will be defined by the Editor-in-Chief based on the upcoming issues’ themes.
  16. The reviews are archived and kept at the office of the Legal Studies journal five years after publication or rejection of the manuscript.
  17. The Editorial Board is obliged to submit copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation at the Ministry’s request.

The reproduction of the material (in part or in full) is permitted only upon the Publisher’s written consent, except where the material is reasonably cited. Any citation of the material shall refer to the Legal Studies journal (Pravovedenie) as the original source of publication.