Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

The main aim of the academic journal “Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika” (The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice) is to assist to the integration of Russian young scientists and researchers of state and society into the European Research Area. Other aims of this academic journal include: allowing scientists publishing results of their researches and allowing scientists from different regions exchange opinions, forming open scientific polemics, which favour scientific networking and help developing consolidated information area of scientific communication.
 
The journal publishes articles that contain analysis of topical scientific problems and results of specialists’ researches and is designed for academics, doctoral students, Ph.D. candidates, applicants for degrees, master’s students and instructors of higher education of the Russian Federation, CIS states and far-abroad countries. The journal is called for furthering integration of Russian young researchers of state and society into the European Research Area.

The journal “The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice” is a public platform for effective exchange of information, opinions, results of investigations in the sphere of juridical sciences, expressing and discussing various viewpoints regarding topical issues.

 
 

Peer Review Process

1. General Provisions
1.1 Provision on reviewing (hereinafter - Provision) regulates the peer-review procedure of author manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal “The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice” (hereinafter – Journal).
1.2 Reviewing of article manuscripts at the editorial board of the Journal is accomplished with the objective to provide and maintain the high level of scientific and theoretical edition and to select the most valuable and urgent works for publication.
1.3 In the Provision, the following principle terms are used:
Editor-in-chief is a person who heads the editorial staff and makes final decisions concerning production and output of the Journal.
Editorial board is a consultative body consisting of a group of reputable experts that assists Editor-in-chief to select, prepare and evaluate articles for publication.
Editorial council is an advice body aimed to control the high-level quality of the Journal published, to assist editing and publishing activity management, its development and improvement.
Author is a physical person who produced the article manuscript based on the result of scientific research carried out.
Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the Journal and providing scientific expertise of author materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Reviewing is the process of examination of a scientific article by scientists, specialists in the relevant field, and revelation of its advantages and drawbacks in order to make a decision on the urgency of the manuscript publication in the Journal.
2. Reviewing Procedure
2.1 All articles submitted to the editorial board of the Journal are subject to independent reviewing.
2.2 The date of sending the article by means of filling out the site electronic form is considered to be the date of the article admission by the Journal editorial board.
2.3 The executive secretary informs the authors about the admission of the article, the results of its consideration and reviewing via automatic e-mail notification.
2.4 After the scientific article manuscript is accepted by the Journal editorial board it is examined by the executive secretary on the subject of its compliance with the Journal requirements, general provisions of “Rules of article writing” (hereinafter – Rules), and from the point of author ethics view.
2.5 If materials for publication do not meet formal requirements, the article is not permitted for publication and the author is notified automatically.
2.6 The manuscript meeting formal requirements is submitted to the double peer review, when the reviewer does not know the author’s name and the author does not know the reviewer’s name.
2.7 The review period is 1 month.
2.8 In case the article is submitted without adherence to one or more editorial criteria, the reviewer makes decision on revising the article and recommends the author to make corrections.
2.9 The author of the article should make all necessary corrections no later than 14 calendar days after receiving the notification and return the updated text to the editorial board via e-mail ippravgos@yandex.ru.
To the revised manuscript, the author should add a letter explaining all the changes made to the article (highlighting them in the text with a different colour). Updated version of the article is again submitted to the reviewer. The date of the revised article arrival to the editorial board is considered to be the date of the article admission by the editorial board.
2.10 Manuscripts revised by the author are again submitted to the same reviewer who criticized the article or to another one appointed by the Editor-in-chief.
2.11 Articles of the authors who did not remove reviewer’s constructive remarks or did not give a reasoned refutation are not accepted to publication.
2.12 In case of negative conclusion concerning the manuscript or its updated version, at the Editor-in-chief’s decision, the article is rejected with the compulsory notification of the author about the reasons for this decision.
2.13 The Journal editorial board sends copies of the author’s article review or motivated refusal as well as takes responsibility to send review copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if the corresponding request comes to the Journal editorial board.
3. Requirements to Reviewers
3.1 Manuscript reviewing is conducted by the Journal editorial board members or editorial council members, being authoritative experts in the relevant field of topics reviewed and having the scientific specialization associated with the article topic most. In order to review article manuscripts external reviewers may be engaged provided they have deep professional knowledge and work experience in the particular scientific field.
3.2 The reviewer cannot be the co-author of the article presented for review or the scientific supervisor of the author.
3.3 If a reviewer concludes that he or she is not an expert in the subject of the presented article or is not able to prepare the article review on time, they must inform the Editor-in-chief and decline the review.
3.4 When submitting the article to review, the reviewer is notified that the article is the intellectual property of the author and the subject of confidential information, which shall not be discussed with anyone.
4. Review Structure and Contents
4.1 The review is performed in the written form and signed by the reviewer.
4.2 The typical review structure is approved by the editorial council and contains:
Expert evaluation of:
– urgency of the topic of the manuscript submitted for reviewing;
– scientific and informational novelty (initial novelty) of the material;
– personal extent and contribution of the author to obtaining results of scientific research;
– theoretical and practical significance of conclusions presented.
Motivated statement on the article drawbacks and indication what error corrections shall be made by the author.
Conclusions about the possibility of the article publication or its publication after the relevant error correction, or the rejection of the manuscript.
4.3 Scanned copy of review without reviewer’s personal data is notified to the author via e-mail.
5. Order of Argument Settlement
5.1 The author has the right not to agree with the reviewer’s remarks and give response to editorial board in the form of a covering letter explaining what remarks and why were not accepted.
5.2 In case of argument, the editorial board can make a decision to direct the article for additional reviewing by another expert on the topic of the article.
5.3 According to the results of additional reviewing, the Journal Editor-in-chief makes a final decision either to publish the article, or to reject it. The reasons for rejection may be both essential drawbacks of the research conducted and essential drawbacks in the article text itself.
6. Closing Provisions
6.1 After the Journal Editor-in-chief makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the executive secretary informs the author about the decision made via automatic e-mail notification.
6.2 The order of articles publication is determined by their registration date of submission to the editorial board. Works devoted to especially urgent problems of science, manuscripts of foreign authors written in English as well as articles containing completely new information may be published out of queue at the request of the editorial board.
6.3 Reviews are kept in the Journal for at least 5 years. Copies of reviews may be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request by the editorial board.

 

Open Access Policy

Core policy of the journal “The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice” implies the principle of the openness of the journal to authors and readers. Open access to journal’s archives is provided on its web site as well as on the platform of Russian Electronic Library eLIBRARY.ru, where full-text materials are located, along with metadata of journal’s articles in Russian and in English.

In accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative, “open access” to [peer-reviewed research literature] means its 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

 

Publication Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "The Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).
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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice".
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 programmes record "the minutes of science" and we recognise 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1 If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1 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.
4.8.2 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.
4.9 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice" 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 specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».