The peer review (expert assessment) procedure is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the “Legal Horizons”. The purpose of the review is to promote a careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. Expert judgment helps to improve the quality of research. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to Publication Ethics.

  1. “Legal Horizons” adheres to double-blind peer review, according to which peer review is carried out anonymously for both the reviewer and the authors.
  2. Scientific articles prepared in strict accordance with the General Requirements for the Layout of Manuscripts, that have passed the primary control in the editorial office are allowed to the stage of reviewing.
  3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy.
  4. Subject to the requirements for the publication of the journal, the manuscript of the article is transferred to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it (the article is encoded).
  5. The encoded article is sent by e-mail to the member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction for the content of the article, as well as to external reviewers.
  6. A member of the editorial board and external reviewers, to whom the coded article was sent, fill out standard forms and select one of the following options:
    • recommended for publication;
    • recommended for publication after revision;
    • not recommended for publication.

    In case of refusal or the need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written reasoning for such a decision. The term for preparing recommendations is within two weeks from the date of receipt of the article.

  7. Reviewers' recommendations are sent by e-mail to the technical editor. Articles requiring revisions are sent to the authors with specific recommendations for editing the manuscript without identifying reviewers.
  8. The revised version of the article is sent to the editorial board for re-checking and reviewing. In case of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
  9. The final decision on the publication of an article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, which considers the reviews received and reports of plagiarism checks.
  10. The editorial decision is sent to the author. The editors do not enter into discussions with the authors of rejected articles.
  11. Further work with an article accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial board in accordance with the technological process of preparing the journal issue.
  12. Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the editorial office in electronic form for 2 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article is posted.

All stages of work on the manuscript, starting from the receipt of the article by the editor and up to its publication, are described in the table below.

All stages of work on the manuscript, starting from the receipt of the article by the editor and up to its publication, are described in the table below.