Peer-review process

After the author submits a manuscript to the editorial office of the scientific collection “Law Journal of Donbass”, it undergoes a double-blind peer review process. In this process, reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

1. Preliminary Review (up to 5 days)

  • Verification of the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope
  • Plagiarism screening (using StrikePlagiarism)
  • Verification of compliance with formatting requirements
  • Editorial decision: send the manuscript for peer review or reject it

2. Appointment of Reviewers (2–3 days)

Members of the Editorial Board are involved in the peer review process, as they determine the journal’s thematic profile, assess the relevance of the topic, and have publications in the relevant subject areas. The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board are responsible for organizing the peer review process and ensuring compliance with the principles of academic integrity.

For the review procedure, an anonymized version of the manuscript is provided to the reviewer. If the selected reviewer considers themselves not sufficiently competent to evaluate the manuscript or realizes that they cannot provide an assessment within the required timeframe, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief.

Criteria for Selecting Reviewers:

  • Possession of a PhD or Doctor of Sciences degree
  • Publications related to the subject area of the manuscript
  • Publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science
  • Absence of conflict of interest with the author(s)

3. Peer Review (2–4 weeks)

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • the adequacy of the justification of the article’s relevance;
  • the substantiation of the connection between the problem addressed in the article and important scientific or practical tasks;
  • the completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the topic;
  • the correspondence between the objectives of the article and the problem addressed by the author;
  • the justification of the scientific results obtained;
  • the scientific conclusions and their correspondence to the purpose of the article;
  • the prospects for further research in the relevant field.

4. Possible Reviewer Recommendations

The review must contain specific conclusions regarding the advisability of publication, indicating the main shortcomings of the manuscript (if any), and one of the following recommendations:

  • recommended for publication;
  • recommended for publication subject to revision of the indicated shortcomings;
  • not recommended for publication.

5. Author Revision

  • The author receives an anonymous review report;
  • prepares a revised version of the manuscript;
  • submits a response to the reviewers’ comments.

6. Final Decision

The presence of a positive review does not automatically guarantee publication. The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board of the journal.

Documentation 

  • Reviews are prepared using the standard journal review form.
  • All review reports are stored in the editorial archive for three years. 

Timeframes 

  • Average time from submission to the first final decision: 4–5 weeks
  • Time allocated for author revisions: 7 days
  • Time for additional review (if required): 7 days

Appeal Procedure

Authors have the right to submit an appeal against a rejection decision within 10 days. The appeal is reviewed by an independent member of the Editorial Board.