| MAIN PAGE
> Journal "NB: Administrative Law and Administration Practice"
> Peer-review process
1. All submitted articles that meet the journal's aims and scope are subject to external peer review to obtain an independent expert evaluation. Peer reviewers are experts in the subjects of the articles they review and have released publications relevant to the journal's scope over the past three years.
2. The publisher sends the author the peer-reviewed copy or a reasoned rejection and undertakes to provide the peer-reviewed copies to the RF Ministry of Science and Higher Education if a request is received from the Ministry. The peer-reviewed originals are perpetually kept in the publishing house's archive.
3. Before peer review, all submitted articles are automatically checked for plagiarism (through the Anti-Plagiarism System).
4. If the article successfully passes the anti-plagiarism check, the editor-in-chief ensures it complies with the journal's aims, scope, and formal requirements. It is then sent for review to external peer reviewers who are experts in the same field of science. Our journal uses double-blind peer reviewing—neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities.
5. The peer reviewers evaluate the articles on many essential criteria to provide a justified and objective decision to accept or reject your article. In particular, peer reviewers have to respond to the following questions:
- Is the topic of the article relevant and compliant with the journal's aims and scope?
- Does the article’s text correspond to the title?
- Is the article abstract clear and informative? Does the abstract allow us to understand the essence of the author's research and its results? (Quality of Abstract)
- Are the description of the research subject, its objectives, methodology, and main results clear, accurate, and informative? (Quality of Presenting)
- How high is the scientific novelty and value of the author's conclusions, as well as their logic, validity, and reliability? (Quality of Conclusions and Reasoning)
- Are there any elements of scientific reflection in the article under review, including an analysis of the current state of the problem under study, the author's interpretation of the results concerning other studies, etc.? (Quality of Discussion)
- Is the literature cited, as well as the used sources, appropriate, relevant, and sufficient to solve the author's research scope? (Quality of Literature Cited)
- Does the article comply with journal formatting requirements (e.g., proper structure, academic style, absence of factual and grammatical errors, etc.)? (Compliance with Journal Formatting Requirements)
- Does the article give new knowledge? Is the article interesting for the journal’s audience and research community? (Scientific Value)
6. The administrator or the editorial staff will notify the author within no later than seven days that the article has been received by the journal and sent for peer review. The peer-review deadlines depend on peer reviewers, but the publisher does their best to ensure that the author can get information about the decision of the article under review as soon as possible.
7. If the journal rejects the article for formal reasons or on the recommendation of the peer reviewers, the author will receive a message containing a reasoned refusal.
8. Once rejected by the peer reviewers, the article is not allowed for new submission and revision.
9. Successful peer-review evaluation of the article does not guarantee publication. Making the final judgment on whether to accept an article for publishing is the right and duty of the Journal Editorial Board.
10. Taking into account the peer reviewers’ recommendations, if the Journal Editorial Board accepts the article for publishing, the author will receive a message concerning this decision and the expected deadline for publication.