Peer Review Policy and Ethics
The Editorial Board of the Demidov Law Journal is committed to the highest standards of academic ethics and ensures a rigorous peer review process for all published materials. The review process is designed to uphold the scholarly quality of the journal, verify the validity of research findings, and assist authors in improving their manuscripts. All interactions among authors, editors, and reviewers are conducted through the journal's online submission system and official email.
1. Desk Review
All manuscripts submitted via the online system undergo an initial evaluation by the Managing Editor and relevant members of the Editorial Board. At this stage, the following criteria are assessed:
• Relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope and thematic focus;
• Compliance with formal formatting, structural, and length requirements;
• Inclusion of required accompanying documents and adherence to publication ethics;
• Originality of the text (manuscripts are checked using the "Antiplagiat" and "Dumeyt" systems to detect improper borrowings, plagiarism, and the unauthorized use of AI-generated content).
• Manuscripts that do not meet the stated criteria or show signs of plagiarism are rejected without being sent for external peer review (Desk Reject). The manuscript status is changed to "Rejected," and the author is notified automatically or via a personalized email.
2. Review Type and Organization
The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process: the identity of the reviewer is concealed from the author, and the identity and affiliations of the author are concealed from the reviewer.
• Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or a Deputy Editor-in-Chief based on the subject matter of the manuscript.
• Reviewer Qualifications: Reviewers are leading scholars who hold an advanced academic degree, are recognized experts in the field of the reviewed manuscript, and have publications in that specific subject area within the last three years. Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board or independent external experts.
• Conflict of Interest: A reviewer must not have co-authored publications or affiliations with the author, nor any other conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the review.
3. Timeline and Evaluation Criteria
The standard review period is two to three weeks from the date the article is sent to the reviewer (the maximum period does not exceed one month).
During the evaluation, the reviewer assesses the manuscript based on the following criteria:
• Relevance of the topic and academic novelty;
• Theoretical and practical significance of the results;
• Methodological rigor and validity of the conclusions;
• Logical structure, coherence of argumentation, and presentation;
• Quality of academic language, stylistic clarity, and accuracy of citations and references.
4. Editorial Decisions
Upon completion of the review, the reviewer provides a written report with one of the following recommendations:
1. Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without changes.
2. Minor Revisions – the manuscript requires minor technical or editorial corrections; no second round of peer review is required.
3. Major Revisions – the manuscript requires substantial content revisions and will undergo a second round of peer review after resubmission.
4. Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
The Editorial Board sends the author an anonymized copy of the review, including comments and recommendations, via the online submission system and/or email.
5. Revisions and Dispute Resolution
• Manuscript Revisions: If a manuscript is returned for revision, the author must submit the revised version within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Board (typically 30 days). The resubmission must be accompanied by a "Response to Reviewers" letter, detailing the changes made or providing a reasoned argument if the author disagrees with specific comments. The revised article is then sent for a second review, either to the same or a new reviewer.
• Rejection: In the event of negative reviews or the author's refusal to make required revisions, the manuscript is rejected. The decision to reject is final; no further correspondence regarding rejected manuscripts will be entertained.
• Dispute Resolution: In the event of a dispute (e.g., an author's disagreement with a review), the Editor-in-Chief may initiate an additional independent review (adjudication) or submit the issue for consideration by the Editorial Board.
6. Acceptance and Publication Schedule
The final decision regarding the acceptance of a manuscript and its inclusion in a specific issue is made by the Editorial Board, led by the Editor-in-Chief. Once the manuscript status changes to "Accepted for Publication," the Managing Editor informs the author of the expected publication timeline. The Editorial Board does not guarantee strict publication dates; articles are scheduled based on the order of acceptance and the thematic composition of upcoming issues.
7. Record Keeping and Compliance
• Original reviews, in electronic and/or print format, are retained in the journal’s editorial archive for a period of five years.
• In compliance with Russian academic regulations, the Editorial Board provides copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK), or other authorized regulatory bodies upon official request.
