Requirements for reviewing articles

1. In order to comply with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and to prevent any violations of these standards, both in their own work and in relations with all participants in the process of scientific publications, a mandatory review procedure is carried out for all articles.

2. All articles that correspond to the subject of the Journal are sent for review.

3. Members of the Editorial Board, scientists who determine the vector of development of scientific thought, who have their own scientific schools and followers in Kazakhstan and abroad, who have made a significant contribution of international importance in various fields of legal science, as well as highly cited specialists in scientific circles who have publications in relevant subject areas, can be involved in reviewing.

4. The composition of the reviewers is not permanent and is updated annually if necessary. The rotation of reviewers is carried out to involve an increasingly wide range of specialists in the review process, as well as in the case of improper performance by a particular reviewer of the obligations assumed.

5. Rights and obligations of the reviewer:

The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the article sent to him, explaining the reasons for the refusal.

The reviewer must:

1) conduct a conscientious and high-quality review of the article;

2) send the scanned versions of the reviewer’s agreement, in accordance with Annex 5, and the review to the email address within the established time frame.

6. The reviewer evaluates:

1) the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;

2) relevance of the topic;

3) statement of the scientific problem;

4) problems of the content of the article;

5) innovations proposed by the author, scientific novelty;

6) the credibility of the solution to the problem under discussion, the logic of the presentation of the material;

7) compliance of the research results with the original statement of the scientific problem;

8) terminological unambiguity;

9) the author’s knowledge of the scientific literature on the discussed range of problems, including international experience;

10) clarity of language and style, the need for additional scientific and literary editing.

7. Review Requirements:

1) the review should contain specific conclusions:

on the expediency of publication, taking into account the previously published literature on this issue;

about the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;

conclusion about the possibility of publication: “recommended”, “recommended taking into account the correction of the noted shortcomings” or “not recommended”.

2) the review is made out in the form according to appendix 6, must be signed by the reviewer and certified by the seal of the institution at the place of work of the reviewer.