Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

The journal accepts manuscripts on topical issues of public and private international law: scientific articles, commentaries on court decisions, book reviews. The journal welcomes authors - theorists and practitioners, experienced and young researchers.

Sections

Articles

Editorial Note

Theoretical Inquiries

Topical Issues

Interdisciplinary Researches

Comparative Legal Research

Reform Debate

Philosophy

History

Discussion

Praxis

Case Study

Commentary

Book Review

Peer Review Process

HSE University Journal of International Law adheres to high standards of publication ethics, in particular, the recommendations of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Prior to submission for review, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the editorial team for compliance with the profile and requirements of the journal.

The Editor-in-Chief appoints at least two reviewers for each manuscript from among the members of the Editorial Board or external reviewers. All reviewers are leading experts in international law. The journal adheres to the principles of ‘double-blind’ reviewing: the names of reviewers and authors are not disclosed during the review process.

The review period is usually not more than two weeks and can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following main criteria: relevance of the presented research from the standpoint of modern trends in the development of this area (or areas) of international legal knowledge; originality and novelty of the scientific research; knowledge by the author of scientific literature and modern research on relevant issues; clarity of presentation of the material: structure of the presentation, logic of argumentation, consistency of conclusions with the given data. The reviewer's questionnaire also provides an opportunity to leave comments for the author (in free form) and comments for the editorial team, which will not be sent to the author. The reviewer is obliged to evaluate the submitted manuscript objectively and unbiased. Reviewer's comments should be reasoned. Personal criticism of the author is inadmissible.

The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing in case of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a situation in which any circumstances affect or may affect the ability of the reviewer to evaluate the submitted manuscript solely on the basis of its content and scientific value. The reviewer should inform the Editor-in-Chief about a possible conflict of interest as early as possible.

Based on the results of reviewing, the reviewer gives one of four conclusions:

(1) accept for publication;

(2) publish the material after revision by the author;

(3) publish the material subject to substantial revision;

(4) refuse publication.

If the reviewer recommended to publish the material after revision by the author or under the condition of substantial revision, the comments of the reviewer are passed to the author. The author has the right to reasonably reject the reviewer's comments. As a rule, the term for revision of the text by the author based on the results of reviewing is not more than two weeks but can be extended at the author's request.

In case of two conflicting reviewers' conclusions, the Editor-in-Chief resolves the conflict at her discretion or appoints a third reviewer, including a meta-reviewer (a reviewer to whom not only the manuscript text but also anonymised texts of reviews are sent).

Publication Frequency

Four issues per year.

Open Access Policy

The journal is published online with immediate open access to publications. No printed author copies are issued.

Periodicity

four issues per year