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 authors' 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.

Type of Peer Review

The journal "Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine" adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:

• reviewers are not aware of the personal data of the authors;
• authors are not aware of the personal data of the reviewers.

Criteria for the Selection of Reviewers

• possession of an academic degree of Candidate of Sciences (Doctor of Philosophy, PhD) or Doctor of Sciences;
• availability of publications relevant to the subject matter of the reviewed article;
• availability of publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
• absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s);
• the reviewer must not have been a co-author of the author(s) within the last three years.

Engagement of External Independent Reviewers

External peer review involves Ukrainian and foreign Doctors of Sciences specializing in the same academic field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial office, such a scholar is sent a letter requesting a review. The letter is accompanied by the anonymized article and a standard review form. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) and must have no conflict of interest.

Peer Review Procedure

Preliminary Review (up to 7 days)
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo plagiarism screening and verification for compliance with the requirements set out in the section “Publication Conditions”. Only articles that comply with the “General Requirements”, have passed initial editorial screening, and have undergone copyright verification are admitted to the peer review stage.

The initial assessment of a scientific article is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Submitted materials must correspond to the scope of the journal. If the publication requirements are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code and removes all identifying information about the author(s).

Assignment of Reviewers (2–3 days)
The anonymized article is sent by email to:

• a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant academic field;
• two external independent experts (reviewers).

Peer Review (14 days)
During the peer review process, reviewers assess the following aspects:

• compliance of the article’s content with the topic indicated in the title;
• relevance and novelty of the scientific problem addressed;
• substantiation of the practical significance of the research;
• value for a broad readership.

Decision of the Editorial Board

Following expert evaluation, reviewers may:

• recommend the article for publication;
• recommend publication subject to minor revisions;
• recommend publication subject to major revisions;
• not recommend the article for publication.

If reviewers recommend rejection or revision, they must provide a written and reasoned justification for their decision.

The editorial board’s decision is communicated to the authors. Articles requiring revision are returned together with the review text without identification of the reviewers. Authors must address the comments within 10 days. The revised version of the article is submitted for re-review, during which reviewers may request additional revisions. Revision does not guarantee acceptance; if the reviewers consider the changes insufficient, the article will be rejected.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, nor regarding materials related to products or services in which they have a personal interest. All such manuscripts are subject to the journal’s standard procedures of independent peer review without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or their research group.

Documentation Forms

• Reviews are prepared using the journal’s standard form.
• Reviews are signed by reviewers using a handwritten or electronic signature.
• Reviews are retained in the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the issue in which the reviewed article appears.

Timeframes

• Total period from submission to final decision: up to 8 weeks.
• Time allowed for revision: up to 10 days.
• Time for re-review: up to 10 days.
• The author has the right to appeal a rejection decision within 10 days. The appeal is considered by an independent member of the editorial board within 30 days.

After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it undergoes literary editing.

STANDARD REVIEW FORM