Review Policy

Peer review (expert assessment) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of Social ana Legal Studios. The purpose of the peer review is to contribute to the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

The Editorial Board accepts theoretical and methodological articles concerning the journal's focus and scope. Manuscripts which do not correspond the main approach (ICT in education) or the edition's requirements can be rejected at the stage of initial review. The Editorial Board support international high standards of the peer review process transparency, therefore practice the double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names. Previously all of their personal information removed from the articles texts and files. The submitted articles are sent for reviewing to two independent experts. The reviewers view the article's abstract, whereupon consent or refuse to review this material. In the case of refuse, other reviewers are appointed.

The reviewers consider the material and estimate its scientific level filling "Review Form", where specify their remarks and comments. Additionally, experts may upload files with corrections or materials which can be used for the revision of the article.

The articles submitted by the authors without a scientific degree must be accompanied by a review provided by a leading expert (Doctor of Sciences) or recommendation for publication provided by the corresponding affiliated department.

All articles submitted to the Editorial Board are reviewed. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, determination of its compliance with the journal's requirements, and involves a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the materials of the articles submitted.

Stages of the review process

Submission. The author(s) submits an article that meets the requirements of the journal listed in the Guidelines for Authors section of this site to the Editorial Board.
Checking the article for plagiarism. For all articles submitted for review, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using appropriate software.
Appointment of reviewers. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent to the reviewers according to the research profile. Reviewers are selected and appointed by the responsible editor of the journal. For review of articles, both members of the editorial board of the scientific journal and third-party highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and work experience in a specific scientific direction can act as reviewers.
Reviewing. Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind review (two-way "blind" review: reviewers are unaware of the personal details of the authors; authors are unaware of the personal details of the reviewers). Interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place through the responsible editor of the journal.

The reviewers, as a rule, within 14 days make a conclusion about the possibility of accepting the article for publication and provide the Editorial Board with their final recommendations by filling out a standardized form.

After filling the basic "Review Form" experts select one of the offered recommendations:

Accept Submission– the article is ready for publication and accepted without changes
Revisions Required – accepted, if the author takes into account the indicated remarks
Resubmit for Review– need a revision and repeated reviewing
Resubmit Elsewhere – the subject of the article corresponds to other edition
Decline Submission– the article does not correspond to the requirements of the edition
See Comments – choose in the case when none of previous recommendations is satisfied

If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, the manuscript is sent to the author with a proposal to take the reviewer’s comments into account when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The author(s) can resubmit the revised article and add a letter that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were (or were not) made to the article. The reviewer then makes a decision regarding the possibility to recommend the Editorial Board to accept the article for publication.
Final decision regarding the possibility and expediency of publication is accepted by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if necessary, by a meeting of the Editorial Board.

Appeal procedure:

If the author(s) does not agree with certain remarks and/or recommendations of the reviewer, they have the right to send an appeal to the Editorial Board in the form of the "remarks of the reviewer – comment of the author". This document is sent to the reviewer and the decision regarding the manuscript is made jointly with the Editorial board.
In the case when the reviewers choose mutually opposite resolutions regarding the submitted manuscript (accept/reject), the editors contact them and jointly consider all comments to agree on the position regarding the further publication of this material. If a decision cannot be made, the editors appoint an independent expert.

Review Policy

Language