The procedure for reviewing articles sent to the editors of the peer-reviewed publi-cation

Reviewing manuscripts of articles (hereinafter referred to as articles) sent by the authors for publication in the journal Bulletin of SUSU, the series “Law”, is carried out in accordance with the following rules.

Document flow during the review

 Reviewing of manuscripts is organized by the editorial board. 

  1. Articles submitted to the editorial office, drawn up in accordance with the requirements adopted in the journal, are sent for review.
  2. For the review of manuscripts of materials, as reviewers, recognized experts in this subject in the relevant field, having a doctorate degree and publications on the subject of the reviewed article over the past three years, can be involved. The author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work cannot be a reviewer. A member of the editorial board of the journal cannot act as a reviewer.
  3. The reviewer reviews the article within 1 month from the date of receipt of the article and sends his review to the editorial board. The circulation of documentation between the editorial board and the reviewer, as a rule, should take no more than 2 months from the date of sending the article to the reviewer.
  4. Not later than 2 weeks after receiving the review, the editorial board, on its basis, makes a decision on accepting the manuscript for publication, the need for its revision or the impossibility of its publication in the journal due to insufficient scientific level or inconsistency with the subject of the journal. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the contact author. At the request of the author, a copy of the review can be sent.
  5. If the reviewer concluded that the article needs to be improved, then the authors should send its corrected version to the editorial office. After the revised article is returned to the editorial office, it is again sent to the reviewer, who notifies the editorial office (by phone or e-mail) about the possibility of its publication. The authors may justify their refusal to follow the recommendations of the reviewer in writing. In this case, the authors' explanatory letter is sent to the reviewer, who agrees or disagrees with the authors. If the authors ignore the reviewer's recommendations for finalizing the article, then the article is not published.
  6. In case of receiving two negative reviews, the editorial board decides to refuse publication and stop further correspondence, which is reported to the contact author.
  7. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years. The editorial board of the publication can send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation or the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office of the publication.
  8. Articles and accompanying documents not accepted for publication are not returned to the authors.

Form and content of the review

  1. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the material of the article, an objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations.
  2. The review is issued as an A4 document, font No. 14 Times New Roman, single line spacing, all page margins - 2 cm.
  3. The review has the title: “Review of the scientific article <authors of the article> <name of the article>, submitted for publication in the journal Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series "Law".
  4. The review should evaluate:
  • relevance of the chosen topic;
  • scientific novelty;
  • degree of validity of scientific provisions, conclusions and recommendations formulated in the article, their reliability, theoretical and practical significance;
  • style and literacy of the presentation of the material;
  • remarks (if any).
  1. The final part of the review should reflect reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the scientific periodical Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series "Law" in a specific scientific direction, corresponding to the nomenclature of scientific specialties approved by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
  2. If the reviewer believes that the article needs revision/correction of errors, he should give recommendations to the author on how to improve the manuscript. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
  3. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions.
  4. After the text of the review, information about the reviewer should be indicated: (full name, academic degree, academic title, position, publications of the reviewer on the subject of this scientific article for the last three years, full name of the organization in which the reviewer works). The review must be certified by a seal.