PEER REVIEW

 1. Organization and Order of Reviewing

1.1 All the materials received by the “Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences” magazine (hereinafter referred to as the Journal) 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 Journal in order to make sure that the manuscript is correctly issued and complies with the scientific profile of the Journal. 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.

2. Requirements for the Team of the Reviewers (Experts)

2.1 The reviewing is performed by a member of the editorial board, 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 Еditor-in-chief engages external reviewers (doctors or candidates of science, including practitioners) who are not members of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-chief shall agree with the reviewer on the deadline for submitting the review to the Editors office.

2.3 The Editor-in-chief shall agree with the reviewer on the deadline for submitting the review to the Editorial Board.  

2.4 The term of reviewing - 2-3 months.

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.

2.8 Any selected Reviewer who believes that he/she is not qualified to review the manuscript and / or does not have enough time for timely review should notify the Editor-in-chief and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.

3. Form and Method of Review

3.1 The review is performed in writing.

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. Requirements for the Review Contents

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 Journal 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 Journal;

2) publishing in the Journal is not allowed (in this case, the reviewer justifies his conclusions and points out meaningful mismatches that influenced the decision-making. The editors office 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.  

4.6 The author of the Manuscript should make all the necessary corrections into the final variant of the Manuscript no later than in 5 days after he receives the notification by electronic mail, and re-send the corrected text and the accompanying letter to the reviewer (by electronic mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ).

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. Order of Settling Disputes

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 writing. After that he receives a confirmation of excluding the manuscript from consideration.

5.2 The Editors office of the Journal informs 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 office of the Journal may publish a retraction and inform the interested parties about the infringement.

6. Concluding Provision

6.1 The reviews are stored on the Editors office of the periodical during 5 years and are forwarded to the Russian Federation Ministry of Science and Higher Education at request.