- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
The journal «The Phenomenon of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» a periodical scientific publication revealing original fundamental scientific research in the field of Russian law, the state of modern law enforcement and evaluation of legislative projects at faculty of Law and management of the Kalmyk state university named after B.B.Gorodovikov, as well as analysis of foreign legislation, scientific doctrine and practice. The aim of the journal is to exchange the latest information in accordance with the permanent contacts of representatives of scientific schools of universities in Russia and foreign countries, to bring scientific and practical ideas to a wide range of readers.
The main purposes: development and publication support of urgent scientific tendencies of modern legal science; promotion of research results in domestic and international science; ensuring and maintaining high standards of scientific research in legal science.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
- Organizing the review process
1.1. Manuscripts of scientific articles (other materials) submitted to the editorial board are subject to obligatory reviewing. Publications of “The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition” are subject to external double-blind review, implying that the identities of reviewers and authors are concealed from each other during the review process. To this end, authors should take care that manuscripts received in the personal account are prepared in such a way that they do not give away the identities of the authors (see * and **).
* Authors should remove from the text of the manuscript any information that identifies them (authors' names and places of work) before it is sent to the Editorial Board (see Step 2 of the Rules for Submitting and Preparing Manuscripts of Articles).
** In addition to removing the names and locations of authors under the title of the manuscript, the author should take the following steps to ensure that the manuscript is properly prepared for double-blind review. Thus, to this end, authors should: formulate third-person references to previously published works of authors (manuscripts). For example, instead of "we/authors previously demonstrated [Ivanov, Petrov 2015]" will be stated "Ivanov and Petrov demonstrated [Ivanov, Petrov 2015]"; make sure that the figures and tables cited do not contain references to the authors' places of work; keep important references to the works of authors or other persons, but limit the references to authors' works only to those relevant to those who review the submitted manuscript; state quotations from published works of authors in the text as follows "[Anonymous 2007]"; to depersonalize (authors) in the list of references: "[Anonymous 2007]. Information omitted for double-blind review purposes; remove references to funding sources; remove any personal information (including authors' names) from file titles; and make sure that document properties are also depersonalized.
1.2. Scientists who have a recognized authority and who have worked in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript refers for the last three years and who have publications on the subject of edited materials are involved in the reviewing process. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisors of the applicants for a scientific degree and employees of the department in which the author(s) works. Highly qualified scientists and specialists from other scientific organizations with profound knowledge and experience in a particular scientific area are engaged as reviewers to conduct reviewing of manuscripts of articles.
1.3. The time frame of reviewing in each individual case are determined by the deputy editor-in-chief of the journal, but not more than 4-6 weeks from the receipt of the article in the editorial office of the journal.
1.4. Reviewing is confidential: during reviewing the identity of reviewers and authors are hidden from each other. Information about the reviewer is anonymous to the authors and is intended only for the editorial board. The name of the reviewer can be disclosed to the author only with the reviewer's consent.
1.5. Reviewers do not have the right to use for their own benefit the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication.
1.6. The review is filled in the journal system and has an electronic form.
1.7. The Editorial Board sends the author(s) copies of reviews for the received materials in electronic form. Articles finalized by the author are re-sent for reviewing to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the discretion of the editorial board.
1.8. If the author does not agree with the reviewer's comments, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the article and inform the editorial board about it.
1.9. In case of a negative review, the article can be transferred to another reviewer at the request of the author(s), who is not informed about the results of the previous review. In case of a negative result of the second review, copies of the negative reviews are sent to the author(s) upon their request.
1.10. In case of refusal to send a manuscript for reviewing and/or in case of rejection of a manuscript submitted by the author(s), the editorial board must inform the author(s) about the reasoned grounds for the refusal.
1.11. The final decision about the advisability of publication after reviewing is made by the editorial board.
1.12. Articles not related to the scientific direction of the journal are not allowed for publication in the journal:
- articles whose subject matter does not belong to the scientific direction of the Journal;
- articles that are not properly designed, the authors of which refuse from the technical revision of articles;
- articles whose authors have not carried out the revision of articles on the constructive remarks of the reviewer.
Authors found to have plagiarized articles will not be able to publish them in the journal “The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition”
1.13. Reviews on received materials are stored in the electronic editorial office of the journal; their copies can be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request to the editorial office of the journal.
1.14. Authors are not charged for reviewing articles.
- Requirements for the content of the review
2.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations.
2.2. The review should be prepared according to the form offered by the editorial board with the following provisions:
- The content of the article corresponds to its title;
- compliance of the article with the design requirements;
- general characteristic and evaluation of the article content (subject matter, focus, relevance, including scientific provisions and results presented in the publication, validity and significance, prospects for practical application);
- content of the article (originality of material, presence/absence of previously published works, presence of erroneous statements, controversial points, etc.)
- presentation of the publication (clarity, conciseness, availability and completeness of the reference and bibliographic apparatus);
- the possibility of reducing the volume of the article without prejudice to the understanding of the presented scientific provisions and results;
- what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author(s).
2.3. The final part of the review should contain conclusions about the article as a whole and a recommendation whether the article can be published in the journal «The Phenomenon of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» sent for revision or not recommended for publication in a particular scientific field corresponding to the nomenclature of scientific specialties approved by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
2.4. The electronic form of the review has the following structure
- Signs of improper borrowing or other violations of scientific ethics
- Relevance of the subject
- Clarity of statement of the scientific problem and the depth of its comprehension
- Consideration of the issue history and the actual scientific context
- Scientific novelty of the final result
- Mastery of scientific discourse, observance of the standard requirements to the text execution and bibliographic system of the article
- Additional comments and remarks (optional)
- Recommendation of the reviewer
- Instructions for the reviewer
3.1. Go to your personal account on the website of the journal.
3.2. In the personal cabinet click on the link Reviewer.
3.3. Click on the title of the article sent to you for reviewing.
3.4. A new page will open where you can read the abstract of the article.
3.5. You then need to agree to review or refuse by scrolling to the Review Steps.
3.6. In Step 1, you will need to select:
I will be reviewing - I will not be able to review.
You need to click on the picture next to the answer you selected.
A new page will load, where the answer will be automatically generated. It is obligatory to click on the Send button.
3.7. If your answer is positive, the page will reload and you will return to the article review page.
You need to click on the picture next to the answer you selected.
A new page will be loaded, where the answer will be automatically generated. It is necessary to click on the Send button.
3.7. If your answer is positive, the page will reload and you will return to the article review page.
3.8. The manuscript will be available only if the potential reviewer agrees to the review. Click on the article file names to view them or save them to your computer.
3.9. Click on the Review icon and fill out the form.
3.10. You can also download additional files from your computer with questions or comments for the author/editor.
3.11. After completing the review form, select your recommendation (Accept for publication; Corrections needed; Revision with re-review; Send to other journal; Reject; See Comments) regarding the article and click "Send review to editor.
Publishing Ethics
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition».
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support «The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition» journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- FSBEI of HE “Kalmyk state university named after B.B.Gorodovikov”
Author fees
Publication in “The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
“The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in “The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “The Phenomen of Law and Legislation: Strategies and Methods of Cognition" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.
