1.1 All the materials received by the “Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences” magazine (hereinafter referred to as the Periodical) and complying with its theme obligatorily pass through the scientific review, for their expert evaluation.
1.2 For reviewing, the scientific articles are admitted that were issued in full compliance with the “Requirements for Articles” (hereinafter referred to as the Requirements), and passed through the primary inspection procedure in the editors office.
1.3 The works forwarded for review and not complying with the Requirements are not admitted for the review.
1.4 The Manuscript of the scientific article (hereinafter referred to as the Manuscript) forwarded to the editors office is examined by the technical secretary of the Periodical in order to make sure that the manuscript is correctly issued and complies with the scientific profile of the periodical. In case the manuscript follows all the requirements, it is accepted to reviewing and the notification of accepting the manuscript for reviewing is sent to the author if forwarded by electronic mail.
1.5 At the discretion of the author, the forwarded Manuscript can be accompanied by an external Review, but this fact does not cancel the order of reviewing accepted for the Periodical.
2.1 The reviewing is performed by the editor in chief, a member of the editorial board or a member of the editorial council who is closely specialized in the topic of the article and is an acknowledged specialist in the reviewed topic and has his/her own publications in 3 preceding years on the topic of the article reviewed.
2.2 The editor in chief may involve outsourced reviewers (Doctors of Sciences, Candidates of Sciences, including specialists in practice) who are not the members of the editorial board of editorial council. The editor in chief settles the deadline for submitting the Review to the editorial office with such a Reviewer.
2.3 Reviewers – members of the editorial staff:
Galina Yakovlevna Borisevich,
Candidate of Juridical Sciences Head of the Criminal Law and Procedure Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Lubov Vitalyevna Borovykh,
Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Criminal Law and Prosecutor Supervision Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Yulia Valeryevna Vasilyeva,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor Labor Law and International Law Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Zinaida Petrovna Zamaraeva,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Professor, Head of the Social Work Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Sergey Vladimirovich Kodan,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Theory of the State and Law Chair The Urals State Law Academy, Yekaterinburg;
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kochev,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Constitutional and Finance Law Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Olga Anatolyevna Kuznetsova,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Civil Law, Deputy Dean for Scientific Affairs of the Law Faculty Perm State National Research University, Perm – Editor in Chief;
Arkadiy Viktorovich Maifat,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Civil Law Chair The Urals State Law Academy, Yekaterinburg;
Sergey Georgievich Mikhailov,
Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Dean of the Law Faculty Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Aleksandr Vasilyevich Moskalev,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Constitutional and Finance Law Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Aleksey Dmitrievich Proshlyakov,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Criminal Procedure Chair The Urals State Law Academy, Yekaterinburg;
Valery Pavlovich Reutov,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Theory and History of the State and Law Chair Perm State National Research University, Perm;
Heyno Aleksandrovich Siygur,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor of the Tartu University, Estonia;
Elena Markovna Tuzhilova-Ordanskaya,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Civil Law Chair The Institute of Law, Bashkir State University, Ufa;
Larisa Vladimirovna Shchennikova,
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Civil Law Chair, Kuban State University, Krasnodar.
2.4 The term of reviewing should not exceed 2 weeks (14 days).
2.5 The author or the co-author of the Manuscript reviewed, the scientific supervisor of the author, a member of the staff of the department where the author works cannot be the reviewers.
2.6 When the Manuscript is forwarded to the Reviewer, the latter is informed that this Manuscript is the intellectual property of the author and should be treated as the information not subject to disclosing.
2.7 The reviewers are not allowed:
- To use the Manuscript for their own needs of the third parties’ needs;
- To disclose the information contained in the manuscript, before it is published;
- To forward the Manuscript to other persons for review with no prior agreement of the editor in chief;
- Use materials contained in the Manuscript for their own interests before the Manuscript is published.
3.1 The review is performed in writing, personally signed by the reviewer.
3.2 A scanned copy of the review is forwarded to the author.
3.3 The review uses a double-blind peer review method (when the reviewer does not know the name of the author, and the author does not know the names of the reviewers).
3.4 The Manuscript is given to the reviewer with no information about the author.
3.5 All the reviewers shall follow the ethics requirements for publishing of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be impersonal and impartial.
4.1 The following issues are mentioned in the review:
- If the article contents comply with the topic declared in the title;
- If the article contents comply with the thematic course of the magazine;
- If the contents have novelty in them;
- If the article complies with the scientific level of the magazine;
- If the article publishing is practicable with the account for the previously published literature on the topic, and if it can be of an interest for the wide range of the readers;
- What in particular the benefits and the drawbacks of the article are;
- What corrections and additions if any should be introduced by the author.
4.2 The structure of the review should obligatorily include the following elements:
1) Timeliness of the Manuscript meant for publishing.
2) Personal participation of the author in reaching the scientific results described in the Manuscript;
3) Scientific novelty of the research results discussed in the Manuscript;
4) Practical significance of the research results viewed in the Manuscript;
5) Modernity of the research methods and statistical processing of the materials.
6) Admissibility of the Manuscript size.
7) Compliance of the conclusions to the purpose and the tasks of the research.
8) Clarity of the material presentation: style, terminology, wording.
9) Quality of the literature source study and correctness of the bibliography data format.
10) Availability of the references to the foreign bibliography sources.
4.3 In the concluding part of the review, the reasoned conclusions should be included about the Manuscript as a whole, and the clear recommendations on the practicability of its publishing in the periodical or the necessity of its improvement should be given.
4.4 The results of the review could lead to one of the two decisions:
1) accepted for publishing in the Periodical;
2) publishing in the Periodical is not allowed (in this case, the reviewer justifies his conclusions and points out meaningful mismatches that influenced the decision-making. The editors send a justified refusal or a copy of the review to the author of the Manuscript);
3) eliminate the faults noted.
4.5 In case the manuscript does not comply with one or more criteria, the reviewer in his review makes it prominent that the article needs to be improved and gives recommendations to the author to eliminate the faults.
4.7 The Manuscripts improved by the author are repeatedly sent for reviewing either to the same reviewer or to another reviewer at the discretion of the editor in chief.
4.8 The manuscript is not admitted for publishing in case the author of the manuscript did not correct the faults noted by the reviewer or did not reasonably contested them.
5.1 In case the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, he can claim for a repeat review or to withdraw the manuscript by notifying the editors in writingt. After that he receives a confirmation of excluding the manuscript from consideration.
5.2 The editors of the Periodical inform the author about the process of the manuscript review and about the decision taken, at the author’s request. The information is exclusively given to the author of the Manuscript.
5.3 Should the publication of the manuscript lead to the infringement of the copyright or the generally accepted scientific ethical norms, the editors of the Periodical may publish a retraction and inform the interested parties about the infringement.
6.1 The reviews are stored on the office of the periodical during 5 years and are forwarded to the Russian Federation Ministry of Education at request.