Review Policy
For publication in the scientific journal Irpin Law Journal, the Editorial Board accepts scientific articles written in English or Ukrainian that have not been previously published in other editions. Articles submitted for publication must not be under review by other periodicals. A scientific article must comply with the formatting requirements for articles in the scientific journal.
The primary factors influencing the Editorial Board's decision to publish an article are the verification of materials for originality, the reliability of the study, the relevance of the topic, and its significance for researchers and readers. The Editorial Board of the journal does not permit the publication of materials prohibited by the legislation of Ukraine, or references to such resources. The Editorial Board informs the author of the prospective publication timelines, as well as the specific journal issue in which the submitted article may be published.
Prior to publication, all articles undergo peer review by leading domestic and foreign experts. The names of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors (the principle of double-blind review). Peer review serves two primary functions to enhance the quality of scientific research:
Determining the reliability, significance, and originality of the article;
Suggesting ways to improve the publications.
The review provides the fundamental contribution to the Editorial Board's decision. The review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
The decision regarding publication is made by the Editorial Board solely on the basis of the reviewers' conclusions. Provided that the materials submitted by the author(s) align with the goals, objectives, and editorial policy of the scientific journal, the Editorial Board publishes the articles primarily in the author's edition; otherwise, the material is rejected. The Editorial Board may not necessarily share the views of the authors.
The Editorial Board of the journal is responsible for the quality, scientific validity, and adherence to academic standards in every published material. The decision to publish is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the results of an independent double-blind peer review.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the presented facts, citations, and research results, while the Editorial Board ensures proper oversight regarding the methodological correctness and scientific novelty of the manuscripts.
Criteria for Selecting Reviewers
Possession of a scientific degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Doctor of Sciences.
Presence of publications within the subject field of the reviewed article.
Presence of publications in editions indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science.
Absence of conflict of interest with the author(s).
No more than one reviewer from the author's institution.
Involvement of international reviewers (where possible).
The reviewer must not have been a co-author with the author within the last 3 years.
Core Principles of Reviewer Conduct
Promptness. Any invited reviewer who considers themselves unqualified to review the research presented in the manuscript, or knows that they will be unable to prepare the review in a timely manner, must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative review arrangements can be made well in advance.
Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must make no attempts to seek out or contact potential authors of the articles proposed for review.
Standards of Objectivity. Reviews of scientific material should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is impermissible. Reviewers must express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. The evaluation is conducted objectively, and comments are based on arguments and clearly formulated.
Correctness of Citations. A reviewer must bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers must not use any part of the material obtained for review in their own research without proper citation.
Conflict of Interest. Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submission.
In the event of significant discrepancies between reviews or the emergence of doubts regarding the quality of the evaluation, the editorial office may:
Appoint an additional peer review;
Involve a member of the Editorial Board;
Conduct an internal expert review.
Peer Review Procedure
Stage 1. Preliminary Consideration (up to 7 days):
Verification of compliance with the journal's scope.
Plagiarism check (utilizing StrikePlagiarism).
Verification of compliance with formatting requirements.
Decision: forward for peer review or reject.
Stage 2. Appointment of Reviewers (2–3 days): Reviewers of scientific materials (selection of two independent reviewers) are appointed by the executive secretary of the journal's Editorial Board. The selection of reviewers is carried out thoroughly, taking into account qualifications and publication history. Each reviewer receives a corresponding invitation. An anonymized version of the article is provided for the peer review process. If the selected reviewer does not consider themselves competent to evaluate the quality of the manuscript or realizes that he/she will be unable to deliver a judgment within the specified timeframe, he/she must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief.
Stage 3. Peer Review (2–4 weeks): The reviewer evaluates:
Relevance of the topic and scientific novelty
Correspondence between the title and content
Quality of the literature review
Correctness of the methodology
Reliability of the results
Validity of the conclusions
Quality of formatting and language
Stage 4. Editorial Board Decision: Feedback on scientific works must be objective. The primary task of the reviewer is to provide a reasoned conclusion, avoiding personal criticism and subjectivity. Personal criticism of the author(s) of a scientific article is impermissible. Reviewers are obligated to express their views clearly and with sound arguments.
Possible recommendations of the reviewer:
publish the article in the author's edition, i.e., without making any changes;
accept the article for publication after making minor editorial changes;
return the material to the author for revision. In this case, the manuscript, after revisions made by the author, must be sent again for re-review;
reject the article without further consideration.
In case of a divergence of opinions between the reviewers, a third reviewer is appointed, or the decision is made by the Editorial Board.
Stage 5. Revision by the Author:
The author receives anonymous feedback.
Prepares a revised version.
Submits a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
Stage 6. Final Decision: The Editorial Board makes the final decision, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers.
Timelines
Total timeframe from submission to the first final decision: 4–6 weeks
Timeframe for revision: 14 days
Timeframe for re-review: 10–14 days
Appeal: The author has the right to file an appeal against a rejection decision within 10 days. The appeal is considered by an independent member of the Editorial Board.
Once the manuscript of an article is accepted for publication, it undergoes literary editing, editing of the abstract in English, and final corrections by the author of the article. The Editorial Board reserves the right not to accept a manuscript for further consideration if the proofreader detects inadequate implementation of literary corrections, or if the author has introduced significant changes to the existing material that were not previously considered by the reviewers.
