Review Policy
PEER REVIEW POLICY
- General Provisions
1.1. This Peer Review Policy has been developed in accordance with international standards and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Declaration of Ethical Principles of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), and the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.
1.2. All scholarly articles received by the editorial office of the journal Scientific Studies of Crime and Punishment undergo mandatory double-blind peer review.
1.3. Peer review is conducted on a non-remunerated basis. Members of the Editorial Board, the Editorial Collegium, and invited external experts must possess recognised scholarly authority and publications on the subject matter of the reviewed material within the last 3 years.
1.4. Scholars holding an academic degree are engaged to review manuscripts. In appointing reviewers, the principle of academic degree equivalence is strictly observed: articles by authors holding the degree of Doctor of Sciences are reviewed exclusively by Doctors of Sciences. Articles by authors holding the degree of Candidate of Sciences or not holding an academic degree (postgraduate students, applicants, practicing specialists) may be reviewed by both Candidates and Doctors of Sciences.
- Initial Screening Procedure
2.1. The Editor-in-Chief (or the Executive Secretary) conducts an initial assessment of the article for compliance with the scholarly profile of the journal (scientific speciality 5.1.4. Criminal Law Sciences), formatting requirements, and text originality.
2.2. At this stage, the article may be rejected without peer review in the event of clear non-compliance with the journal's scope, violation of publication ethics (including the unauthorised use of generative artificial intelligence), or a low level of text originality.
- Peer Review Procedure
3.1. Each article is sent to two independent reviewers. To ensure a comprehensive assessment and exclude conflicts of interest, one reviewer is appointed from among the members of the Editorial Board or Editorial Collegium of the journal, and the second from among invited external reviewers not affiliated with the publishing organisation or the editorial office.
3.2. Peer review is conducted according to the double-blind peer review model: reviewer details are not disclosed to the author, and author details are not disclosed to the reviewer. All correspondence regarding the results of peer review is conducted exclusively through the editorial office.
3.2.1. If the author or co-author of a submitted manuscript is a member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Collegium of the journal, the expert examination procedure is carried out exclusively by two external independent reviewers not affiliated with the publisher or the editorial office. This member of the Editorial Board (Editorial Collegium) is completely excluded from the peer review processes and from any editorial decisions regarding their own manuscript.
3.3. The reviewer evaluates the article against formalised criteria (scholarly novelty, soundness of conclusions, relevance and currency of the cited literature, and structure). The review period is 1 month from the date the manuscript is received by the expert. If additional time for the expert examination is necessary, upon the reviewer’s reasoned request, this period may be extended by agreement with the editorial office.
3.4. The Editor-in-Chief may act as a reviewer only in exceptional cases (narrow specialisation of the topic) or when a third-party assessment is required due to conflicting reviews.
3.5. The reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial office without delay of any conflict of interest (of a financial, personal, professional, or other nature capable of influencing the objectivity of the assessment) and to recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.
- Decision on Peer Review Results and Feedback
4.1. Following peer review, one of the following decisions may be made by the Editor-in-Chief:
- Recommend for publication in the submitted form.
- Recommend for publication after addressing the comments (without re-review).
- Recommend for publication subject to mandatory revision and subsequent re-review.
- Reject the article.
4.2. The editorial office sends the author copies of the reviews (without indicating the reviewers’ personal data) and/or a reasoned rejection notice.
4.3. If reviewers’ comments are present, the author prepares a revised manuscript within a period not exceeding 14 calendar days from the date the editorial notification is sent, and provides a brief written response explaining the changes made.
4.4. In the event of a scholarly dispute or irreconcilable disagreements between the author and the reviewers regarding the comments or conclusions of the article, an independent arbitration procedure is applied. In such situations, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, third-party independent experts are engaged to evaluate the manuscript and the author’s written objections. To formulate a final objective decision, the disputed issue may be brought before the Editorial Collegium of the journal for discussion and collegial consideration.
4.5. The final decision on including the article in an issue is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the expert opinions received (as well as the results of the arbitration and collegial consideration by the Editorial Collegium, if conducted).
- Storage and Use of Reviews
5.1. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years. Storage of reviews in electronic form is permitted. A review sent by the reviewer to the editorial office via e-mail is deemed to be signed with the reviewer’s simple electronic signature and is equivalent to a hard-copy document signed by the reviewer’s handwritten signature.
5.2. Copies of reviews are provided to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (the Higher Attestation Commission), as well as to other authorised state bodies and organisations upon their reasoned requests.
