The peer review (expert evaluation) is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine". The purpose of the peer review is to contribute to the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

1. Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine adheres to double blind (anonymous) peer review:

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

   • the authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are verified for plagiarism and compliance with the requirements placed in the section Terms of publication. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the section Formatting Guidelines, which have passed initial control in the editorial office and copyright check, are admitted to the review stage.

3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or his deputy. Submitted materials must be relevant to the journal's subject. 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:

   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. Аnonymous 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.

   • to a member of the editorial board responsible for the subject area of the article;

   • to two external experts (reviewers).

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, 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.

If the reviewers' recommendation for the article is a rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviews signed by the reviewers with a conventional 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.

7. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles to be revised are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, in the process of which the reviewers can ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
8. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of articles. He does not participate in the decision-making process for articles authored by himself, his family members or colleagues, as well as for materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. All such materials are subject to the standard procedures of the journal with independent peer review, which does not involve the editor or his research team.