Reviewing Regulation

The procedure for reviewing articles sent to the editorial office of the journal «Public Law Today»

  1. All incoming manuscripts corresponding to the subject of the journal «Public Law Today» are reviewed for the purpose of their expert evaluation. The Journal implements a policy of publishing high-quality research results while conducting a thorough but friendly review.
  2. All incoming manuscripts are checked for compliance with the rules of the journal «Public Law Today». The editorial board reserves the right to return or reject the work if it does not meet the established rules.

  3. Anti-plagiarism. In order to ensure the quality of published materials and copyright compliance, all submitted manuscripts are checked through the Antiplagiat system. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the COPE rules. Then the manuscript is sent for review.

  4. The shelf life of the review. The reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.

  5. The review is conducted confidentially. At the same time, the editorial board of the journal undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request. A review with an indication of its author can be provided at the request of expert councils in the Higher Attestation Commission. In addition, reviews indicating the authors are uploaded to the RSCI, but only the experts of the journal have access to them.

  6. Type of review. The journal «Public Law Today» adopted a double-blind review.

    Composition of reviewers and determination of their candidates. The reviewers are specialists in the relevant manuscript of the field who have publications on its subject over the past three years. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief.

  7. Review deadlines. From 14-20 days to 1 month.

  8. Actions of the reviewer in case of refusal to review. The editorial board of the journal appeals to the reviewer with a request to inform if there is a conflict of interest (related to the content of the manuscript, research topics, financial, etc.), which may lead to a biased conclusion (the very existence of a conflict of interest is not an ethical violation) or some other reasons (including ethical ones), because of which the reviewer cannot evaluate the manuscript. At the same time, the reviewer remembers that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure, copies of articles are not allowed to be made (a notice of this is contained in the header of the reviewer’s questionnaire).

  9. Variants of the reviewer’s conclusion. To facilitate the work, reviewers are recommended to use the review form of the journal «Public Law Today». It lists the following solutions:

     — Recommend for publication in the presented form.

     — Recommend for publication, provided that the author takes into account the comments of the reviewer.

     — Recommend rejecting the submitted material.

  10. Actions of the editorial board, the editorial board and the author when working with the text sent for revision. The editorial board sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of licenses or a reasoned refusal in electronic form. In case of refusal to send the submitted manuscript for review, a reasoned response is sent to the author by e-mail. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the text of the review is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article. The author must submit a new version of the article to the editorial office no later than two to three weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations. The revised article is resent for review. If minor revision is required, the authors must return the revised manuscript within 10 days.

  11. Acceptance for publication. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on the expediency and timing of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief or his deputy, and, if necessary– by the editorial board of the journal. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the author is informed about it.

  12. The author is informed about the positive evaluation of the article and the timing of publication in the letter.
  13. Refusal to publish. If the article is not recommended by the reviewer for publication, the text of the negative conclusion is sent to the author. In case of reasoned disagreement of the author with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article may contact the editorial office with a request to send his article for review to another reviewer. Then the editorial board of the journal decides to send the article for repeated (additional) review, or provides the author with a reasoned refusal to publish. The final decision on this issue is made by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

Editor-in-chief of the journal
I.V. Panova
«Public Law today»


Contact information

34 Lavochkina St., Moscow, 125581