Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine

Peer Review • Peer review policy

Peer review policy

This policy sets out the rules and procedures for reviewing articles

All Research Articles submissions to Bulletin are double-blind reviewed. Double-blind means that neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identity. Submitted Book Reviews, essays on Novations in Law and Legal Policy, and Debates (look at Sections page) are reviewed by the editor(s) and/or members of the Editorial Board.

Editorial Review

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editors will preliminary evaluate whether it fits within the journal profile (see Aims & Scope page) and meets basic quality standards.

Peer Review Procedure

If the manuscript passes the preliminary editorial review, the next step is a double-blind peer review by two reviewers who hold a relevant degree and are familiar with the topic(s). As a general rule, one of the peers will be a member of Editorial Board, and one of them is an independent peer. Exceptionally, there may be only one peer.

The blind review is based on reciprocal anonymity. Measures to ensure anonymity are described in the relevant section.

Reviewing the article is carried out in electronic form, which only reviewers and members of the editorial board have access to. The form includes sections: Evaluation of the content of the article; Evaluation of the methodology of the study; Evaluation of conclusions to the article; Evaluation of annotation, bibliography, structure and style of the article.

The main criteria by which the article should be evaluated are as follows:

  1. The scholarly merit of the manuscript.
  2. The current interest, value and relevance.
  3. The logical coherence, structure and legibility.
  4. Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way.
  5. Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data.
  6. Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable.
  7. Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.

Reviewer, naturally, can modify this list or add her/his own criteria, pointing this out in relevant comments.

As a conclusion the peer will be asked whether she or he:

  • recommends the manuscript for publication without modification (meaning that the material is ready to go to the copyediting stage)
  • recommends publication after minor improvements (meaning the material needs minor changes that can be made by the editor)
  • recommends the substantial revision of the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments (this means that the material needs significant changes and, thus, a second round of review)
  • recommends the author to submit the material to another journal (which means that likely the material does not completely fit the profile of the Bulletin; it may be worth considering to publish it in the Academy's Electronic Journal)
  • does not recommend publication

Final decision

The editors will make the final decision regarding on peers' recommendations on acceptance/rejection of the manuscript. In ambiguous situations, the final decision is taken by the Editorial Board by voting.