The journal places particular emphasis on the quality of scholarly publications and adheres to high standards of expert evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Peer review is regarded as a key mechanism for ensuring scientific reliability, academic integrity, and the development of professional discourse in the field of legal studies.

The editorial board ensures the independence, objectivity, and confidentiality of the peer review process, as well as equal conditions for all authors regardless of their academic degree, institutional affiliation, or country of origin. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with basic scholarly requirements.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is maintained to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and academic fairness in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Selection of reviewers is carried out by the editorial board based on their scientific specialization, expertise in the relevant field of law, publication record, and absence of any conflict of interest. Where necessary, independent external experts, including international scholars, may be invited to participate in the review process.

Evaluation criteria for manuscripts include:
• scientific originality and relevance of the research;
• theoretical and methodological soundness;
• clarity, coherence, and logical structure of the manuscript;
• reliability of sources and accuracy of citations;
• practical significance of the research findings;
• compliance with the journal’s scope and submission requirements.

Review timelines are typically up to 3–4 weeks from the date of reviewer confirmation, although they may be extended depending on the complexity of the manuscript or the need for additional expert assessment.

Review format and documentation involve a written review report containing an overall evaluation of the manuscript, substantiated comments, and a recommendation regarding its publication status (acceptance without revision, acceptance after revision, resubmission for review, or rejection).

Decision-making is conducted by the editorial board based on the received reviews. In cases of conflicting assessments, additional peer review may be requested. The final decision is communicated to the author together with anonymized reviewer comments.

The editorial board ensures confidentiality throughout the peer review process and upholds high ethical standards in all interactions among participants in scholarly communication.