Actual Problems of
Economics and Law




Regulations on reviewing scientific articles

Discussed and recommended
for execution by the Editorial Panel of the
“Russian Journal of Economics and Law” Journal
(“Actual Problems of Economics and Law”
on July27, 2021




1. The Journal uses a double blind reviewing, when the author does not know the reviewer and the reviewer does not know the author.

2. After the primary assessment of the manuscript, the theme editor responsible for the relevant field in the Journal assigns reviewers selecting them from the list of experts in the Editorial Board database, or addresses to new ones.

3. The theme editor guarantees that all reviewers are recognized specialists in their fields, having publications on the topic of the reviewed article published within three recent years. The reviewers must be doctors of candidates of sciences.

4. The reviewers are sent a letter with a request for reviewing; they should response informing of their consent or rejection. In case of rejection, another reviewer is assigned.

5. For interdisciplinary articles, the Editor-in-Chief assigns two or three reviewers depending on the number of disciplines.

6. All materials are subject to reviewing, except for translated articles from foreign scientific journals, which are assessed by the Editorial Panel of the Journal in a special order.

7. The Editorial Office uses a standard form for reviewing.

8. The publication ethics policy of the Russian Journal of Economics and Law corresponds to the guiding principles of COPE (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines), and in case of suspicion of abuse of official position the Journal editors will act in compliance with them.

9. After considering the reviewers’ opinions, the theme editor adds their comments to the manuscript file or a letter and makes of the following decisions:

9.1. To accept the manuscript.

9.2. To recommend to make improvements taking into account the experts’ comments.

9.3. To reject the manuscript (the reasons for rejection may include low scientific quality, incompliance with the Journal’s policy, etc.), including without the possibility of repeated submitting.

9.4. To assign additional reviewers (in case of disputable opinions about the manuscript content).

10. On receiving reviews, a regular meeting of the Editorial Board considers the issue of the submitted articles and, based on the review assessment, makes a final decision on publishing or rejecting the articles. The author(s) are notified of the decision with a letter. The letter shall contain the general assessment of the article; if the article may be published after improvement, recommendations on improvement are made based on reviewers’ comments; if the article is rejected, the reasons for such decision are listed.

11. During improving the manuscript, the author must make corrections in the manuscript file, highlighting them in color, so that the theme editor could see the changes in the file. For each change, the author’s relevant comment must be given or a substantiated response on the impossibility to make corrections in compliance with the reviewer’s comments.

12. After receiving the corrections, the theme editor may request the reviewers to assess the corrections and to assign repeated corrections if needed, or accept the corrections without requests to the reviewers.

13. After acceptance, the manuscript is sent for formatting and proofreading. The author is notified with a relevant electronic letter that the manuscript undergoes proofreading/formatting. After proofreading, the author approves the final variant of the manuscript.

14. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and the editorial board during five years.

15. The Editorial Board is obliged to forward copies of reviews to the ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation provided the relevant request is submitted to eth editorial office.


2.1. A reviewer studies the manuscript sent to them by an editor.

2.2. A reviewer is not obliged to linguistically edit the manuscript. They focus on assessing the theme relevance, scientific quality and overall style of the article, acceptability of the article structure for the integral material presentation, compliance to the advanced practices of clear and brief academic writing. Linguistic defects, if any, can be marked in a letter to editor.

2.3. A reviewer must declare a conflict of interests, if any. It is recommended to begin a review with a brief summarized vision of the manuscript and its value.

2.4. A reviewer assesses and comments the following:

2.4.1. Is there novelty in the research?

2.4.2. Does the idea/hypothesis stem from the substantiated arguments? Can it be correctly tested and studied? Are the formulated concepts or definitions useful?

2.4.3. Was the quality literature review performed, covering both Russian and foreign periodicals on the topic, which demonstrates a good knowledge of the topic and correct use of modern sources?

2.4.4. Are the logic, clear wordings, and lack of gaps between these observed in the narration? Does the narration comply with the high publication standards?

2.4.5. Are the objectives and tasks indicated in the abstract and introduction? Are they repeated in the conclusion before declaring the regularities found?

2.5. The final decision on the article acceptance is made by the theme and/or chief editor. In case of discrepancies between the opinions of the reviewers and the author(s), the editor may refer to their knowledge on the topic, address to a member of the Editorial Board, or request for an additional review.

2.6. Responsibility for editorial decisions lies on the theme and/or chief editor. All appellations should be addressed to them.

2.7. A theme and/or chief editor is entitled to request reviewers to assess the renewed version of the article, whether it complies with the recommendations and comments expressed by them.

2.8. Reviewers must be tactful. Insults in any form are inacceptable. Any rhetoric deemed to be insulting will be deleted.