The review (peer review) procedure is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "LEGAL HORIZONS". The purpose of the review is to facilitate the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, and to determine the quality of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

1. "LEGAL HORIZONS" adheres to "double-blind" peer review, according to which the expert evaluation is carried out anonymously for both the reviewer and the authors.
2. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the section General requirements for manuscripts that have passed the initial control in the editorial office are allowed to be reviewed.
3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.
4. If the requirements for the publication of the journal are met, the manuscript is submitted to the technical editor, who assigns the article a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it (the article is coded).
5. The coded article is sent by e-mail to the member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article, as well as to external reviewers.
6. The member of the editorial board and external reviewers to whom the coded article was sent fill out standard review forms and choose 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- not recommended for publication.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 reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. An independent expert in the field of research should review the manuscript within two weeks of receiving the article.

Recommendations of reviewers are sent by e-mail to the technical editor. Articles that require revision are sent to the authors with specific recommendations for improving the quality of the material without identifying the reviewers.
The revised version of the article is sent to the editorial board for re-examination and review. In the event of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
The final decision on the publication of the article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, which takes into account the received reviews and plagiarism check reports.
The decision of the editorial board is communicated to the author. The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
Further work with the article that has been accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial board in accordance with the technological process of preparing the journal issue.
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 issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.

 

STANDARD FORM OF REVIEW

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