The order of manuscripts reviewing

The order of manuscripts reviewing

1.                 Author sends to the Editorial Office of the "Civil Law Review" journal (the "Journal") manuscript, which meets the requirements published on the website of the Journal (http://www.mvgp.ru/avtor/).

2.                 The Executive Editor and/or Assistant of the Executive Editor assign an identification number to the manuscript, and then during the period of two weeks check whether the manuscript meets the requirements, pointed in the Article 1 of this Order of manuscripts reviewing.

In case if the manuscript doesn’t meet the Journal’s requirements the Executive Editor or Assistant of the Executive Editor inform author about it with the request to revise the presented to the Journal manuscript during the fixed term. Manuscript not revised during the fixed by the Executive Editor or Assistant of the Executive Editor term is examined in the order and terms of the first manuscript’s presentation.

In case if the presented to the Journal manuscript doesn’t conform to the Journal’s thematic, the Executive Editor or Assistant of the Executive Editor inform author about it.

In case of the presented to the Journal manuscript conforming, the Executive Editor or Assistant of the Executive Editor inform author about it, and then present the manuscript to the Editorial Council.

3.           The Chairman of the Editorial Council sends it in accordance with the speciality of the scientific research for review to one of the Members of the Editorial Board or to the independent expert upon the recommendation of the Member of the Editorial Board.

4.           Reviewing is made confidentially during the term of 30 working days, starting the day of making the decision by the Chairman of the Editorial Council to send the manuscript to the Member of the Editorial Board or to the independent expert.

Review has a closed character and is given to the manuscript’s author by his written request, without signature and with no fixing of the surname, job position, place of work of the reviewer. Breach of the confidentiality is only possible upon the reviewer’s statement about the falsity or falsification of the materials of the article.

5.           If the article’s review has the direction of the necessity to make changes, the article is returned to the author for completing. In this case the date of the article’s introducing to the Editorial Office is the date of returning of the completed article.

              In case of the author’s disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer the author can present a reasoned response to the Journal’s Editorial Office. The article may be sent for the second reviewing or to the adjusting in the Editorial Board. The final decision is made by the Chairman of the Editorial Council.

6.           In case of the favourable review and reviewer’s recommendation for publication of the material the manuscript and the text of the review are discussed on the ordinary meeting of the Editorial Board. Favourable review is not a necessary prerequisite for the manuscript’s publication.

9.           Decision regarding the expediency of the publication is made by the Editorial Board and is fixed in the minutes of the ordinary meeting.

              Upon the request of one of the Members of the Editorial Board the extraordinary meeting of the Editorial Board should be held for the decision of urgent matters, fixed by the Member of the Editorial Board who decided that extraordinary meeting should be held.

10.          If the reviewer doesn’t recommend the manuscript for publication, manuscript and review are discussed on the ordinary meeting of the Editorial Board.

              The Editorial Board has the right to accept the material for publication or to present it to the other reviewer by the appellate claim of one of the Members of the Editorial Board. The decision is made by simple majority.

              Second reviewing is made during the term fixed by the Editorial Board, which can’t be less than 10 working days.

              In case of the second unfavourable review, the manuscript is no more discussed by the Editorial Board.

11.          Decision about the publication after reviewing is made by the Chief Editor, and if necessary – by the Editorial Board as a whole.

12.          The Editorial Board informs author about the final decision.

13.          The Chief Editor of the Journal determines the order of publications depending on the thematic of the Journal’s issues.

14.          The Editorial Office doesn’t undertake obligations regarding the term of publication.

15.          Reviews’ originals are deposited in the Editorial Office for the period of five years.