1. General Conditions
1.1. Current Peer-Review Regulation determines the order and procedure for peer-review of the originals of author's articles (materials) received by the Editorial Board of online scientific journal "Transport Law and Security" (hereinafter – the journal).
1.2. The peer review (expert evaluation) of the manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of publication and to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.
1.3. All materials, submitted for publication in the journal, are a subject to review.
1.4. In this Peer-Review Regulation the following basic terms are used:
The Author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) involved in the preparation of the article on the results of scientific research.
The Editor-in-chief is a person, who is in charge of the Editorial Board and makes final decisions in relation to the production and publishing of the journal.
The Executive Secretary of the Editorial Office is a specialist who organizes and supervises the internal work on planning, timely and qualitative preparation of the journal materials for further publication.
The Plagiarism is an intentional appropriation of authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. The plagiarism may be a violation of copyright, patent law and may entail legal liability.
The Editorial Board is a consultative body from a group of authoritative persons, which assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.
The Expert/Reviewer acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific examination of author's materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
The Peer-review is a procedure of review and expert evaluation of the scientific article proposed for publication by the reviewers in order to determine the expediency of its publication, identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript by the author and the editorial Board.
2. The order of initial consideration of the article
2.1. The editorial Board of the journal accepts for consideration articles and materials reflecting scientific views, results and achievements of fundamental and theoretical and applied research in the field of Legal Sciences and corresponding to the passports of the journal. Materials that do not correspond to the subject matter of the specified subject area are not accepted for consideration.
2.2. The article is accepted for consideration provided that it meets the requirements for the original author's articles (materials).
2.3. Materials can be submitted to the editor by e-mail at email@example.com the following form:
- a carefully read copy of the article, drawn up according to the requirements for publications, previously unpublished and containing a bibliographic list of at least three sources;
- abstract (brief description of the thematic content of the article) - 150-250 words( 700-1000 characters), keywords-5-10 words and phrases, as well as translation of information about the author, abstracts, keywords of the article;
- application for publication according to the example.
2.4. The materials of the article should be open. The presence of a restrictive vulture is the basis for the deviation of the mother from the open publication.
2.5. Notification of the authors of the acceptance of materials for publication is carried out by the Executive Secretary within three working days. If it is necessary to improve the materials, the author is sent motivated comments of the expert, the account of which will improve the scientific level of the materials submitted for publication.
2.6. Manuscript of scientific articles submitted to the editorial Board discusses the Executive Secretary on the subject of the completeness of the package of the submitted documents and conformity of the manuscript (article) to the requirements of the editorial Board the journal's scope and submission rules. In case of non-compliance with the conditions of publication, the article can be sent to the author for revision.
2.7. Corresponding to the profile of the journal and the requirements for publication, the article is registered by the Executive Secretary in the journal of accounting for manuscripts received by the editor, indicating the date of receipt, title, Full name of the author(s), place of work of the author(s) and sent for review.
3. The procedure for reviewing manuscripts
3.1. All articles submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory peer review (expert evaluation).
3.2. Members of the editorial Board, as well as scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge, which includes the content of the manuscript, are involved in the review. The experts involved must have either a doctorate or a PhD or an equivalent scientific degree.
3.3. The journal adopted a four-level system of reviewing articles:
Level 1 - checking the text of the article for the presence of the borrowed text-is mandatory for all articles. The editorial staff verifies all articles using the software system for detection of textual borrowing in academic and research works «Antiplagiat.ВУЗ». If the original text is less than 70% (while borrowing from one source can not be more than 10%), the article is sent to the author for revision with the appropriate justification. Borrowings from student work sites are not allowed. In the articles of the column corresponding to the specialties of the WAC "Legal Sciences" allowed the originality of the text at least 60%, where possible wider citation of the analyzed work with the obligatory reference to it.
Level 2 - open peer review (open peer review – the author and the expert know about each other) – the review submitted by the author, if he is a graduate student (in case of acceptance of the article for publication, information about the reviewer is published at the end of the article);
Level 3 - one-way "blind" review (single-blind-expert knows about the author, the author doesn't know about the reviewer) – is mandatory for all articles provided by graduate students in addition to open review. The expert assesses the article for the relevance of the topic and scientific novelty, as well as its structure and style of presentation. If the comments made by the reviewer are removable, the article is sent to the author for revision. The editorial Board reserves the right to refuse publication to the author who wished to leave the reviewer's comments without attention;
Level 4 - double-blind peer review (double-blind – author and reviewer do not know about each other) is used for all authors who are not graduate students who have submitted reviews. In this case, the article is assigned a number and sent to the reviewer by the editorial Secretary without specifying information about the author (name, position, place of work/study). Under the same number the reviews received from experts are registered.
3.4. The expert must consider the article sent to him within two working days and send a review to the editor by e-mail.
3.5. A reasoned refusal to review is sent within one working day after receiving the article.
3.6. According to the results of the review, the expert makes one of the following decisions for consideration of the editorial Board and the editorial Board:
- to recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after revision / elimination of comments;
- does not recommend the article for publication.
3.7. If the expert recommends the article for publication after the revision/elimination of comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of the content and / or technical shortcomings identified in the manuscript, with specific pages, if necessary. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
3.8. Reviewing of the materials submitted to the journal is carried out with confidentiality, and the name of the reviewer, position and place of work are not reported to the author(s).
3.9. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of education and science) reviews are mandatory provided to the Higher attestation Commission and/or the Ministry of education.
4. The decision to publish
4.1. After receiving the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial Board, the issue of received articles is considered and the final decision on the publication of the article or refusal to publish is made on the basis of the reviewers ' conclusions. The decision of the editorial Board is made by a simple majority of votes. In case of equality of votes, the editor-in-chief's vote is decisive. Quorum for decision-making is set at 50% of the total number of members of the editorial Board. The meeting of the editorial colleague can be held in the form of video conference.
4.2. In the final decision on the adoption of the article or refusal to publish the editorial Board of the journal draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author. The review should clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research, correlate the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. An essential element of the review is the expert's assessment of the author's personal contribution to the solution of the problem. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of style, logic and availability of presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions. The review concludes with a General assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication, revision or reasoned rejection of the material.
4.3. On the basis of the decision made, the author(s) on behalf of the Executive Secretary is sent a letter to the e-mail address, which gives an overall assessment of the article and sets out the decision on the materials submitted by the author(s).
4.4. If the article can be published after revision and elimination of comments in the letter recommendations for revision/removal of comments are given. Reviewers and editorial staff do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.
4.5. The article, sent by the author (s) to the editor after revision/elimination of comments, is re – reviewed by the same reviewer or by another-appointed at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.
4.6. In case of rejection of the article from publication, the editorial Board sends a reasoned refusal to the author within one working day after receiving the review.
The article, not recommended by the reviewer for publication, is not accepted for re-consideration.