Расширенный поиск
Издательство «Юрлитинформ»
0
Четверг, 19 октября 2017 г.
About the Journal » Peer Review Rules


Rules for review of manuscripts received by

“Criminalist’s Library Scientific Journal”


1. All manuscripts received for publication in “Criminalist’s Library Scientific Journal” are subject to expert reviewing.

2. All the manuscripts presented are mandatorily reviewed by the members of the Editorial Council and Editorial Board of the journal according to the profile of the manuscript submitted and (or) scientists being recognized experts in the subject of the materials reviewed invited by the Editorial Board.

3. The originals of the reviews are stored in the editorial house for 3 years.

4. The manuscript received will be first reviewed by the editor-in-chief to establish its conformity to the academic direction of the periodical (its subject heading list) and the general requirements of the Rules for the authors presenting manuscripts and to define the reviewer. After preliminary consideration the manuscript is passed on to the reviewer. At refusal to send the manuscript presented by the author for review the Editorial Board shall give him/her a grounded answer.

5. The reviewer will be notified that the manuscript given to him/her for review is a copyrighted object protected by law and may be used only for preparing the review.

6. The term for review is established by the editor-in-chief; however, it should not exceed one month from the date the manuscript is given to the reviewer.

7. The review is given in written form in one copy signed by the reviewer. The signature of the reviewer should be certified. The review can be sent to the Editorial Board in electronic form with a digital signature of the reviewer or a reproduction of the signature in the electronic version of the review.

8. The review can be prepared by the reviewer in any form or in the form provided by the appendix to these Rules.

9. The review should be brief and contain the results of expert analysis of the academic level of the manuscript, the relevance and scientific novelty of the topic, if necessary – critical remarks and recommendations on additional work on the material. The review should specify: a) whether the content of the material corresponds to its title, b) to what extent the manuscript corresponds to the state-of-the-art in science and practice; c) relevance and novelty. The reviewer evaluates: the structure, form of presentation of the material, correctness of the terminology, the methods used by the author and the results of the study.

10. Proceeding from the results of the review the reviewer should make one of the following conclusions:

- the material can be published;

- the material can be published after additional work (this conclusion of the reviewer should be followed by recommendations on improving the material); 

- the material cannot be published (this conclusion of the reviewer should be followed by his/her reasons therefor).

11. In case of a positive opinion of the reviewer the manuscript shall be included in the editorial portfolio for publication.

12. If the review contains recommendations on correction and additional work on the material, the editor-in-chief will send the review to the author suggesting that the recommendations be taken into consideration in the course of additional work on the manuscript.

13. The manuscript not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for another review.

14. The decision on publication is taken by the Editorial Board of the journal taking into account the expert estimates of reviewers. After the decision on the article acceptance to publication is taken the editor-in-chief will inform the author thereof and indicate the approximate time limits for the publication.

15. The editors will send to the authors the reviews to their manuscripts received in electronic form. If requested by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation the reviews shall be given to the Higher Attestation Commission at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and/or the Ministry.

16. No review will be required to publish in “Criminalist’s Library Scientific Journal” reviews, reports on scientific events, normative legal acts and other materials of information and practical character.

 

Editor-in-Chief

А.G. Volevodz


 

 

Appendix

to the Rules for review of manuscripts received by "Criminalist’s Library Scientific Journal" 

REVIEW

of the manuscript presented to the Editorial Board of

“Criminalist’s Library Scientific Journal”

(recommended form)

Title of the manuscript:

 

Name, patronymic, surname of the author:

 

Indicators reviewed

Opinion of the reviewer

General estimate:

(positive, satisfactory, unsatisfactory)

 

Scientific relevance and novelty:

(high, medium, none)

 

Correspondence to the state-of-the-art in legal science and practice:

(corresponds, not corresponds) 

 

Independence:

(high, medium, low, no independence)

 

Quality of performance

The contents corresponds to the title:

(corresponds, not corresponds, requires modification)

 

Grammatical correctness:

(high, satisfactory, low)

 

Style:

(academic, non-academic)

 

Citation culture:

(high, meets the requirements, does not meet the requirements)

 

Meeting of the requirements to publications:

(fully met, partially met, not met)

 

Critical remarks, recommendations and other comments:

 

 

General conclusion:

(recommended for publication, recommended for publication after additional work, not recommended for publication)

 

Data on the reviewer:

(name, patronymic, surname, academic degree, title, place of work and office held)

 

Date of the review:

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Certifying note, seal:

 

 

 

Разработка сайта — РА «Хамелеон»