Peer review (expert assessment) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of  “Law, Policy and Security” and the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific articles.

1. “Law, Policy and Security” adheres to double blind (anonymous) peer review:

• the reviewers does not know the personal data of the authors;
• the authors do not know the personal data of the reviewers.

2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are verified for plagiarism and compliance with the requirements set out in the section For authors.

3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. In cases, where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in the publication (is an author, co-author of an article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the review is carried out by his deputy or another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest. Submissions must match the topic of the journal. If the requirements for publication of the journal are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the authors from it.

4. Аnonymous article is sent by email:

• to a member of the editorial board responsible for the subject area of the article;
• to an external reviewers.

External reviewing involves Ukrainian and foreign doctors of sciences who are specialized in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for peer review. Anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the same institution as the author and cannot be in a conflict of interest.

5. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:

• correspondence of the content of the article to the subject stated in the title;
• relevance and originality of the scientific problem considered in the article;
• substantiation of the practical significance of the study;
• value for a wide scope of readers.

6. After peer review of the article, the reviewers can:

• recommend the article for publication;
• recommend the article for publication after minor revision;
• recommend the article for publication after major revision;
• recommend against the publication of the article.​

7. Reviews signed by a reviewers with a regular or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.

8. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles subject to revision are sent along with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for a second review, during which the reviewers may ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

9. The Editor-in-Chief analyses the reviews of the reviewers and makes the final decision on publication based on them, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the requirements of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making on articles authored by himself, his family members or colleagues, as well as on materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. All such articles are independently peer-reviewed without the participation of the editor or his research team. The final decision on these articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

A typical peer review deadline 2-4 weeks

Median time to first decision 4-8 weeks

Standard review form