Peer review process

Art of Justice is a peer-reviewed journal.

All submissions undergo double-blind peer review (the reviewer does not know the author’s identity and vice versa).

Preliminary Review

Upon submission, the responsible editor checks the manuscript for compliance with content and formatting requirements and runs a plagiarism check.

The article may be rejected or returned to the author for revision if significant deficiencies are found during this stage. Only manuscripts that pass this initial check are forwarded for peer review.

Review Procedure

After the preliminary review, all identifying author information is removed from the manuscript. It is then sent to the Editor-in-Chief to begin the peer review process.

A reviewer must meet the following criteria:

  • Hold an academic degree (Candidate of Sciences / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Doctor of Sciences) in law or a related field;
  • Demonstrate active research or professional engagement in the subject area of the manuscript, confirmed by publications in peer-reviewed journals within the past five years;
  • Have no potential conflict of interest;
  • Confirm willingness to comply with the journal’s confidentiality requirements and standards of academic ethics.

Each manuscript undergoes review by at least two independent reviewers. In case of a substantial discrepancy between their conclusions, a third reviewer is appointed.

The author receives the full text of the review in anonymized form. The identity of the reviewer is not disclosed either before or after the final decision is made.

A standard review request is sent to the reviewer, along with the anonymized manuscript and a template review form.

After receiving a manuscript for review, reviewers assess whether they are able to undertake the review, taking into account the alignment of their qualifications with the subject matter of the author’s research and the absence of any conflict of interest.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must decline the review and inform the Editor-in-Chief in order to resolve the appointment of another reviewer.

If an appointed reviewer does not confirm their willingness to conduct the review or declares a conflict of interest after appointment, the refusal is recorded in the editorial log, and a new reviewer is appointed.

For each manuscript, the editorial office compiles a dossier that includes:

  • The original version of the manuscript with the date of submission;
  • The anonymized version was sent to the reviewers;
  • A signed review form from each reviewer;
  • The author’s response letters indicate the revisions made;
  • All versions of the manuscript;
  • The decision of the Editorial Board.

Reviewers must confirm:

  • Their qualifications match the manuscript topic.
  • There are no conflicts of interest.

If a conflict arises, the reviewer must decline and notify the editorial board.

Reviewers must select one of the following options:

  • Recommend publication.
  • Recommend revision and resubmission.
  • Reject the manuscript.

Review Criteria:

a) Relevance to the journal’s profile
b) Correspondence between title, abstract, keywords, UDC code, and content
c) Relevance of the article’s content to its declared topic
d) Presence of original scientific contribution
e) Compliance with the structure required for academic publications
f) Clarity of key findings in the abstract
g) Compliance with formatting and citation standards
h) Presence of critical/controversial issues, if applicable

Reviewers assess the overall coherence, academic level, validity of conclusions, compliance with research ethics, and correctness of citations. They may suggest improvements to the manuscript.

Authors are informed of the review outcome. If revisions are requested, the manuscript is returned to the author (or first-named author) for updating or a reasoned rebuttal. The updated version must be resubmitted with a response letter detailing the changes.

The revised article is then re-evaluated by the reviewer, who issues a final recommendation. The date of acceptance is the date of the editorial board’s recommendation for publication.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer, they may submit a reasoned response, after which the manuscript is discussed at an editorial board meeting and possibly sent to another reviewer. Refusal to revise may lead to rejection.

Authors have 14 days to revise and resubmit their article.

Editorial Board Review

After peer review, the editorial board votes to:

  • Approve the article for publication
  • Return it for further revision and re-review
  • Reject the article

Authors are notified of the final decision. Accepted articles enter the publication queue, with the possibility of priority publication at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

The editorial board does not engage in discussion with authors of rejected papers.

Reviews are stored for at least three years from the publication date.