Aim and Scope

The aim of the journal is to create a professional platform for discussing complex problems of legal science and practice.

The objectives of the journal are:

1. To publish new results of promising and relevant scientific research, which are essential for the development of legal science and practice.
2. To ensure the fulfillment of international and interregional scientific and coordination functions on the accurate, qualitative and timely publication of the results of scientific works of the authors.
3. To develop legal doctrine.
4. To develop recommendations for judicial and other legal practice.
5. To create an environment of openness and accessibility of wide dissemination of the results of scientific work of graduate students.
6. To form a permanent sustainable interest in the journal among the scientific and teaching community, representatives of the judicial and legal community, young and emerging scientists. To support the growing demand for the journal among the professional community in different regions of Russia and foreign countries.

Section Policies

ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

COMMENTARIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONFERENCE REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have 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.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

1. All article planned to the published in the journal “Kazan University Law Review" go through a review procedure and approval by the editorial board.
2. After the article is received to the editorial office its initial review examination on theme and formal criteria of the journal is being conducted. In case of disparity to the theme the article is not accepted for the further review, the author is reported about that.
3. Then the article is sent for an opinion to a reviewer who is chosen among the editorial board (internal review). Article can also be sent to an independent expert (outer review) Each reviewer has a right to refuse from the review in case of obvious conflict of interest that reflects the perception and interpretation of article information.
4. Review procedure is anonymous both for author and for the reviewer (double-blind review).
5. Based on the review results the article may be rejected, sent for improvement, or accepted for publication. Review opinion is made in electronic and\or paper format.
6. Opinion should have:

• evaluation of the article matter and possibility of its publication in the journal;
• proper list of mistakes in methodology and used instruments (if there are any);
• offers on text improvement.

7. If an opinion contains recommendations for correction and improvement of the article the journal editorial board sends the opinion text to the author with a suggestion to consider them in creating the new version of an article or using reasoning to reject them (partially or completely). Correction of an article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending electronic-message to the authors about the need to correct the article. Corrected article is sent for review once again.
8. In case of a refusal by authors from article correction, they should in written or oral form report to the editorial board about the refusal to publish an article. If authors do not return the corrected version for 3 months since the opinion being sent, editorial board annuls the article from publication reserve even if there is no refusal from correction from the authors. In such cases authors are reported that their article is removed from the register due to the correction period expiration.
9. If an author and reviewers have insolvable contradictions about the article, the editorial board has a right to send the article for the additional review. In case of conflict the editor-in-chief makes a decision on the editorial board conference.
10. Decision about the refusal of publication of an article is made at the conference of the editorial board based on the reviewers' recommendations. Article which is not recommended by the decision of editorial board is not accepted for the second review. Information about the refusal of publication is sent to the author via e-mail.
11. After the decision of journal editorial board about the approval of publication of the article, the editorial office informs an author about that. Article are published in order of priority. Editorial board can make a decision on the extraordinary publication of an article.
12. Having a positive review opinion is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision about the publication is made by the editorial board. In case of conflict the editor-in-chief makes a final decision.
13. Review opinions are kept in journal editorial office for 3 years.
14. Preparation of an article for the publication, executed by the journal editorial board contains regular literary correction and adjustment of the text to the needed editorial standards adopted in the journal practice. All editorial corrections are coordinated with the authors.

Publishing Ethics

Editorial office of the journal “Kazan University Law Review” is guided by the following rules of ethics of scientific publications in its operation.

Principles of professional ethics in the work of editor and publisher

In his operation editor is responsible for promulgation of author's works, which makes it necessary to be guided by the following fundamental principles.

• While making a decision about the publication the editor of the scientific journal is guided by the authenticity of the presented information and the scientific value of the reviewed work.
• Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the work regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, place of origin, citizenship, social status or political views of an author. At the same time, materials published in the journal reflect the personal view of the authors, which can be different from the point of view of the editorial office.
• Unpublished materials, presented to be reviewed, should not be used for personal means or be transferred to the third parties without the written consent of an author. Information or ideas, acquired during the process of editing and connected to the possible advantages, should remain confidential, and should not be used with an aim of acquiring private benefits.
• Editor should not accept the work to be published if he has sufficient grounds to suppose it to be plagiarism.
• Editor together with the publisher should not leave unanswered any complaint connected to the reviewed and published works, and in any case of conflict all the necessary measures should be taken for restoration of violated rights.
• Publisher must be sure that the potential revenue from advertising or making reprints did not affect Editor's decision.
• Publisher should promote the due practice of conducting research and implement scientific standards in order to develop of ethical recommendations, procedures of exclusion and correction of mistakes.
• Editor and publisher aim to organize the process of feedback with the readers, reviewers and members of editorial board on the ways of development of the journal's operation, support the initiatives aimed at limiting dishonesty at conduction of research and preparation of publications, try to find necessary resources and assistance from experts, provide effective choice of reviewers for the articles, respect the wishes of authors on whether a specified person should not review their work if such wish is justified and feasible, when possible to provide access to publications related to the reviewed article to the reviewers, develop and support database of available reviewers and up­date it based on analysis of reviewers' work and use variety of sources for search for new reviewers, be open for researches that contradict to former works published in the journal.
• New editors should not void decisions on publications of articles, made by previous editors, unless in case of their publishing serious problems appear.

Ethical principles in reviewer's operation

Reviewer handles scientific expertise of author's materials, therefore his actions should be of unbiased character, which means fulfilling following principles.

• Article to be reviewed should be viewed as a confidential document that should not be sent for acquaintance or discussion for the third parties that have no competence for that from the editorial office.
• Reviewer should give objective and reasonable evaluation of the viewed research results, should not let the origin of the work, ethnicity, religious beliefs, political or other views of the authors, or commercial reasons affect the content of the review. Should write the opinion objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inciting statements and from slanderous or humiliating commentaries. Personal critique of an author is not accepted.
• Unpublished data received from the reviewed works should not the used by the reviewer in his personal interest.
• Reviewer has to present precise and true information about his personal and professional knowledge and experience.
• Reviewer who, according to his opinion doesn't have enough qualification for the evaluation of the work, or cannot be objective, for example in case of conflict with the author or the organization, should tell about that to the editor with a request to exclude him from the process of review of a given article.
• Reviewer should periodically analyse his approach of the review for seeking for possible developments.
• Reviewer should follow the journal policy in situations which in his opinion may hinder objective review.
• Reviewer should carefully read the reviewed article, support materials (e.g. manuals for the reviewer, needed ethical guidelines and policy principles, files with additional information) and journal manuals, should ask the journal office in case of any questions and requesting lacking information needed for creation of the qualitative review.
• Reviewer should not involve anyone to make a review, including his assistants, unless there is a permit from the journal office; names of all persons who helped reviewers in writing reviews should be added to the text, so their participation is registered in the journal and the journal could express its thank to them.
• Reviewer should report to the journal office if there are consequences that stop him from finishing the opinion in a due time, and should tell a precise time that will be needed for finishing the opinion unless the journal choses another reviewer.
• In case of “double blind” review, if the reviewer can guess who the authors are and that information can cause conflict of interests, he should inform the journal team.

Principles to be followed by the author of scientific publications

Author (or a group of authors) understands that is has the initial responsibility for the novelty and authenticity of his scientific research results, which implies being guided by the following principles.

• Authors of the article should present reliable results of the conducted research. Any statements known to be erroneous, fake or false are unacceptable. 
• Authors should guarantee that the results of the research stated in the given article are absolutely authentic, that the research is conducted according to ethical and legal norms. Any borrowed fragments or statements should be written with mandatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowings and plagiarism in any form , including unmarked quotations, rephrasing or acquisition of rights for other persons' research results are unethical and unacceptable. 
• It's necessary to recognize the impact of all persons who in this or that way affected the research, in particular the article should contain references to the works that were meaningful during the research.
• Authors should not present to the journal an article that was already sent to another journal and is reviewed there, and also an article already published in another journal. Publication of articles of some kind (e.g. translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases athical when following certain conditions. Authors and editors of the concerned journals should agree on the secondary publication that presents the same data and interpretation as in the originally published article.
• As co-authors of the article should be called all people who made a sufficient contribution in the conducted research. Among the co-authors is unacceptable to mention persons who did not take part in the research. Authors should be listed in a sequence set by a “unilateral decision of authors”. Persons who contributed to the research, but are not authors of the article should be mentioned in the article separately.
• Authors can be requested to send unedited date related to the article for the review by the editors. Authors should be ready to present open access to such information (according to ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if it is practicable, and in any case should be ready to save this data during an adequate period of time after the publication.
• If author find serious mistakes or inaccuracies in the article during the period of its review or after its publication, he should report to the journal team as soon as possible.
• All authors should reveal financial or other existing conflicts of interest that can be supposed to have affected the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflict of interests that are to be revealed include employment, consultations, possession of joint-stock property, receiving royalties, execution of an examination, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interests should be revealed as soon as possible.
• Authors retain copyright for their works and grant journal the right of the first publication of the work that is automatically licenced 6 months later on the conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, that helps other persons to spread this work with obligatory preservation of references to the authors of the original work and the original publication in this journal.
• Authors have a right to spread their work in the Internet (e.g. in the University's repository or personal website) after its publication in this journal, because it may lead to the productive discussion and a bigger number of references to the given work.
• All authors knowing or supposing that the presented article is a part of a bigger research should reveal this information.

The journal reserves the right to reject any article given for publication that doesn't correspond to the mentioned above principles.

This passage is prepared based on the materials of Elsevier Publishing and the materials of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Founder

• Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, YurLit LLC, Statut Publishing House LLC

Author fees

Publication in “Kazan University Law Review" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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.

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.

Plagiarism detection

“Kazan University Law Review" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Kazan University Law Review", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Kazan University Law Review" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.