Peer Review Process

Review Model

All research submissions to Problems of Modern Law undergo double-blind peer review. Author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors throughout the process. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant field of law.

Stages of Review

  • 1. Submission. The manuscript is submitted through the journal's Open Journal Systems portal, accompanied by the required metadata, author declarations, and an anonymized manuscript file.
  • 2. Anti-plagiarism screening. Every submission, without exception, is screened with similarity-detection software before it is considered for review. Manuscripts with substantial unattributed borrowing or undisclosed self-plagiarism are returned or rejected at this stage.
  • 3. Editorial screening. The editorial office assesses the manuscript for scope, structure, methodological adequacy, and compliance with the Author Guidelines. This screening is completed within 10 days of submission. Manuscripts falling outside the journal's scope or failing minimum formal requirements are desk-rejected with a written explanation.
  • 4. Double-blind review. The anonymized manuscript is sent to two or more reviewers. The target period from assignment to decision is four to eight weeks. Where reviewer assessments diverge materially, the editor invites an additional reviewer.
  • 5. Decision. The handling editor issues one of four decisions: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject, supported by the reviewers' anonymized reports.
  • 6. Revision cycle. Authors submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. Manuscripts requiring major revision are normally returned to the original reviewers for a second round.
  • 7. Acceptance and copyediting. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, reference verification, and metadata preparation, including verification of the mandatory English abstract and transliterated reference list.
  • 8. Publication. The final version is published in the assigned issue and a Crossref DOI is registered, after which the article is deposited with the journal's archiving and indexing partners.

Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers hold an academic degree (PhD, DSc, or an equivalent recognized qualification) or possess equivalent documented professional expertise, and have a recent publication or practice record in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate originality and scholarly contribution, soundness of legal reasoning and methodology, accuracy of legislative and case-law citation, adequacy of engagement with prior literature, and clarity of presentation. Reviews must be substantiated; a recommendation unsupported by reasoning is not accepted.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an assignment where they have a conflict of interest, including shared institutional affiliation with any author within the preceding three years, recent co-authorship or joint research, supervisory or family relations, or any financial or professional interest in the outcome. Editors who are themselves authors of a submission are excluded entirely from its handling, and the manuscript is assigned to an independent editor. Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shared, cited, or used before publication.

Appeals

An author who considers an editorial decision to be unfounded may submit a reasoned written appeal to the editorial office within 14 days of notification, identifying the specific points of disagreement. The Editor-in-Chief examines the appeal, may consult an additional independent reviewer, and issues a final decision. Appeals are answered within 30 days and do not prejudice the author's future submissions.