Peer Review Procedure for Manuscripts in the Journal Legal Position
Peer review is a key mechanism for ensuring the scientific quality, reliability, and academic integrity of publications in the journal Legal Position. The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, under which anonymity is maintained for both authors and reviewers.
Stages of the Peer Review Process
The peer review procedure consists of several consecutive stages:
1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
At the initial stage, the editorial team assesses the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s scope, adherence to formal requirements, and basic academic standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.
2. Assignment of Reviewers
Independent experts are engaged for the review process. Reviewers must have appropriate academic qualifications, relevant research experience in the subject area, and must not have any conflicts of interest with the authors. The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and impartiality.
3. Peer Review
Manuscripts are evaluated based on a set of criteria, including scientific originality, relevance of the topic, methodological soundness, logical coherence of presentation, proper use of sources, validity of results, and their practical significance. Reviewers provide written reports with recommendations regarding the manuscript (acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection). In cases of significant discrepancies between reviewers’ opinions, an additional review may be assigned.
4. Editorial Decision
The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers’ reports.
5. Revision of the Manuscript (if necessary)
Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments within a specified timeframe.
Criteria for the Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:
- possession of an academic degree or recognized research experience in the relevant field of law;
- publication record related to the subject of the manuscript;
- experience in peer review or participation in academic research projects;
- absence of conflicts of interest with the authors (institutional, professional, or personal);
- adherence to the principles of academic ethics.
The editorial board seeks to involve both national and international experts in order to ensure objectivity and a high level of evaluation.
Principles of Peer Review
Peer review in the journal is conducted in accordance with the following principles:
- confidentiality – manuscripts are not disclosed to third parties;
- impartiality – evaluation is based solely on the scientific quality of the manuscript;
- objectivity – conclusions must be reasoned and evidence-based;
- professional ethics – reviewers must refrain from using the information for personal benefit;
- timeliness – reviews are conducted within established timeframes.
Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on a set of criteria, including:
- scientific originality – the degree of novelty and contribution to legal scholarship;
- relevance of the topic – alignment with current challenges in legal science and practice;
- methodological soundness – adequacy of the research methods used;
- clarity and logical structure of the manuscript;
- proper use of sources and referencing;
- validity of results and soundness of conclusions;
- practical significance of the findings;
- compliance with ethical standards.
Possible Decisions Following Peer Review
Based on the results of peer review, the following decisions may be made:
- accept for publication without changes;
- accept with minor revisions;
- request major revisions with subsequent re-review;
- reject the manuscript.
All reviewer comments are provided to the author in anonymized form.
Resolution of Disputes
In cases of significant discrepancies between reviewers’ reports or doubts regarding the quality of the evaluation, the editorial board may:
- assign an additional review;
- involve a member of the editorial board;
- conduct an internal expert assessment.
Review timeline is typically 3–4 weeks from the reviewer’s agreement, but may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript or the need for additional expertise. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers’ reports.
