1. The following regulations are formulated in accordance with the Resolution of the Academic Board of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences from 22 January 2007 (protocol №1).
2. The Regulations are based on the requirements for peer review of scientific papers and other materials submitted to the Research Yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law (hereinafter – the Yearbook).
3. The Deputy Director for Science is responsible for organizing peer review process of those manuscripts.
4. The Director of the Institute issues an order of appointing the Commission for Organization of Peer Review. The Commission is headed by the Deputy Director for Science and includes the leading researchers of the Institute (hereinafter – the Commission).
The Commission should include at least three members.
5. The Commission appoints peer reviewers and delivers to them manuscripts for peer review. Members of the Commission may act as peer reviewers as well.
6. The Commission is authorized to invite representatives from other academic institutions as peer reviewers.
7. Peer review process should be provided on anonymous basis.
8. Peer review of submitted manuscripts and other materials is free.
9. The Commission appoints two peer reviewers for each submitted manuscript.
10. Peer reviewer should be an expert in the field, which corresponds to the topic of the manuscript, and have published papers in last three years.
11. Manuscript delivered to reviewer should not contain any personal data.
12. Peer reviewer provides the review and sends it to the Commission within the time period established by the Commission.
13. The review should be organized in accordance with the form provided below.
14. Relying on the reviews provided by the reviewers, the Commission selects manuscripts, which receive the highest score within the quota established for the Yearbook, and delivers manuscripts to the Editorial Board or the Executive (Academic) Editor for academic editing.
If the number of manuscripts, which have received positive comments, exceeds the quota established for the Yearbook issue, part of these manuscripts could be put into editorial portfolio. The Commission notifies the authors of those manuscripts about this.
The Commission may offer authors, whose manuscripts are put into potrtfolio, to submit them to another journal.
15. If the reviewer suggests improving the manuscript, the author receives copies of the anonymous comments.
16. Upon receiving of two negative comments, the manuscript shall be rejected and not undergo further review. Copies of the reviews and/or rejection reasons should be delivered to the author of the rejected manuscript within seven days of receiving of the comments.
17. If the manuscript within the quota needs revision according to the suggestions of the referee, it must be done within the time established by the Commission. By the decision of the referee, the revised manuscript is sent by the author for further review.
18. If a submitted paper is withdrawn by the author, the Commission may ask the appropriate author to submit manuscript from the portfolio. By agreement with the author, the Commission establishes the time period, within which the manuscript should be submitted.
19. Upon receiving of one positive and one negative comment, the paper is sent to a third referee for further review.
20. As an exceptional case, the decision on publication of the paper is made by majority vote of the Commission members. In the case of equal voting, the head of the Commission has the casting vote.
21. Copies of comments on all manuscripts, submitted to the Yearbook, are held by the Editorial Board and publishing office for five years.
22. By request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Editorial Board sends required copies of comments to the Ministry.
SAMPLE OF THE REVIEW