ukende

The order of articles’ reviewing

1. To comply with the principles of academic honesty, ethical standards adopted by the international research community and IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY violation of those principles and standards in own work and in relations with all participants of the scientific publications a MANDATORY PROCEDURE for REVIEWING of all articles submitted to the Editorial Board of collection of scientific works of Donetsk Law Institute of MIA of Ukraine "Law Journal of Donbass" is performed.

2. Scientific articles that were submitted to the Editorial Board and comply with the formal criteria are considered at the Board meeting FOR COMPLIANCE with the collection topic and to determine the list of reviewers. Reviewing of materials that are relevant to the subject of the collections, is totally anonymous for the author and the reviewer.

3. Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board, they determine the profile, relevance of subjects and have publications in relevant subject areas. The Chairman and members of the Editorial Board are responsible for organizing the review of the articles and compliance with academic honesty principles.

4. THE REVIEWER EVALUATES:

• sufficiency of disclosure of the relevance of the article;

• rationale of the problem which is raised in the article, with important scientific or practical tasks;

• completeness of the analysis of the last researches and publications of the general problem;

• consistency of the objectives of the article to the problem considered by the author;

• justification of scientific results;

• scientific conclusions and their consistency with the objectives of the article;

• prospects of further researches in this direction.

Also, the reviewer evaluates the terminological uniqueness of the article; the author's knowledge of the scientific literature on the discussed range of issues, including international experience; especially the style and language of the author of the article (clarity of language and style, the need for additional scientific and literary editing, etc.).

5. The review should include SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS regarding the feasibility of the publication mentioning main drawbacks of the article (if any), and the conclusion about possibility of publication: "recommended", "recommended taking into account corrections of the mentioned drawbacks" or "not recommended".

6. The review is issued in printed and electronic versions, a printed version must be signed by the reviewer and stamped by the institution at the place of work of the reviewer, and the electronic version of the review to ensure anonymity of the personality of the reviewer is submitted without a signature.

7. In case of rejection of the article the Editorial Board sends a reasoned refusal to the author.

8. The positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The FINAL DECISION on the feasibility of the publication is made by the Editorial Board of the collection.

 

Approved at the meeting of the Editorial Board

14.03.2018

Real time web analytics, Heat map tracking