Rules of the Review of Articles

General Provisions

The procedure for reviewing of scientific articles which reflect the main results of the research conducted by the author (authors), scientific reviews, reviews (further - articles) submitted for publication in the Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law (hereinafter - Journal) is carried out by researches and specialists of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation (ILCL) before publication. The purpose of the review is to increase the scientific level of the materials which are published in the Journal and to ensure the quality of the article that corresponds to international rules adopted in authoritative reference databases of scientific citation.

The scientific articles should be reviewed if they are sent to the Editorial Office of the Journal in the proper form in strict accordance with the requirements for publications.

​​​​​​​Reviewing Procedure of Articles

All articles submitted to the Editorial Office of the Journal are subject to review.

The material received from the author passes the primary control for completeness and correctness of registration form.

The receiving material is registered in the Editorial Office with an indication of the date of receipt, author(s) name, place of work, contacts for interaction, title.

The review process is organized by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. The choice of review experts refers to the powers of the Editorial Council. The reviewer is appointed on the basis of his specialization and qualification, taking into account the subject matter of the submitted scientific article.

Reviewers are notified that the materials are the results of intellectual activity, capable of legal protection, and refer to information not to be disclosed. The reviewers are not informed about the authors’ name.

Reviewing is carried out within a period of not more than 30 days.

The review includes the following issues:
• whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
• whether the article corresponds to modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought;
• whether scientific novelty is present in the article in question;
• is the article understandable to readers to whom it is addressed, in terms of language, style, material layout, visualization of tables, diagrams, drawings, etc.;
• whether the publication of the article is advisable, taking into account the literature previously published on the subject;
• what are the positive aspects, and also the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
• whether the metadata for the article is a complete informative reflection of the content of the article and whether they meet the metadata requirements of the Journal;
• can the abstract of the article serve as a confirmation of the scientific value of the material presented for peer review and attract readers to the problem under consideration to participate in the further discussion;
• conclusion about the possibility of publishing this article in the Journal: "recommended", "recommended with correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer" or "not recommended".

The reviewer's comments on the submitted article are transmitted to the author for correction. The author is not informed about the name of the reviewer. If there are any comments, the date of receipt of the material in the Editorial Office shall be the date of return of the finalized article by the author.

The finalized article is re-directed to the same reviewer for the additional review. When a positive review is received, the article is submitted to a meeting of the Editorial Council to decide on publication in order.

The decision to publish a scientific article is made by the Editorial Council on the basis of an expert review of the reviewer taking into account the correspondence of the materials of the thematic focus of the Journal, their scientific significance and relevance. In case of refusal to publish an article, the Editorial Staff sends a motivated refusal to the author.

The originals of the reviews or their copies in a graphic form are stored in the Editorial Office for five years from the date of signature by the reviewer.

Archive of issues