Peer review

Composition of the reviewers

Peer review procedure

Period of review

Procedure for resolving disputes

All scientific articles submitted to the editor of the research and practice journal Penitentiary Science undergo mandatory double-blind peer review (the manuscript is sent to the reviewer without disclosing the information about the authors of the manuscript; the review is sent to the author without disclosing the information about the reviewers).


Composition of the reviewers


The reviewers are members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Council of the journal; there are also external reviewers: doctors or candidates of sciences whose scientific specialization corresponds to the subject of the manuscript. Persons without an academic degree, but who are experts in a particular area, may also be involved into reviewing.


All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the material they are to review, and in the past three years they have published their own research findings on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.


The composition of the reviewers is approved by the Editor-in-Chief upon the presentation of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The composition of the reviewers can be extended upon the presentation of the Editorial Board and Editorial Council of the journal.


Peer review procedure


The manuscript submitted to the editor is sent for preliminary examination to assess its compliance with the general requirements of the journal for the quality and design of articles. The examination is carried out within 10 days.

At the stage of preliminary scientific examination of the paper, a decision to reject the manuscript can be made in the following cases.


- The topic of the paper does not correspond to the journal’s scientific scope.

- The volume of the paper is much less than the minimum required (up to 10 pages instead of 16).

- The paper has no scientific novelty, it represents a review of other studies only.

- The paper was previously published in another edition.

- The paper is based on the findings of interdisciplinary research and has more to do with a scientific field outside the remit of the journal.


In case of a positive decision, the manuscript is submitted for peer review.

As agreed by the Editor-in-Chief, the Executive Secretary, directs the article for peer review to a specialist, doctor or professor (candidate of sciences or associate professor), whose scientific specialization is the closest to the topic and who has publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article in the last three years, or hands the article over to the Editorial Board to a curator on the subject matter of the scientific publication.

The member of the Editorial Board responsible for the field of science on the subject matter of the article:

submits the manuscript for review to recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed material who have publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years;

based on the text of the article and reviews, makes a recommendation for the publication of the article (recommended for publication in the journal, not recommended for publication for any reason, recommended for publications after revision).

The forms of reviewing materials submitted for publication are internal and external.

Internal review of manuscripts of articles is carried out by members of the Editorial Board or invited experts from among the staff of the Institute. The Editor-in-Chief has the right to review and edit the materials submitted for publication.

External review of manuscripts is carried out by recognized specialists in the relevant branch of scientific knowledge, who are not employees of the Institute.

After receiving the manuscript, the reviewer reviews it in accordance with the established form.

All reviewers must adhere to the requirements for ethics in scientific publications stated by the Committee on Publication Ethics, be objective and unbiased.

Reviewers are not allowed to:


- use the manuscript for their own needs and the needs of third parties;

- disclose information contained in the manuscript before its publication;

- transfer the manuscript for review to another person without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief;

- use the materials contained in the manuscript before its publication in their own interests.

Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review the manuscript if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the manuscript review, the reviewer makes recommendations about the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer should be substantiated): the article is recommended for publication in its present form; the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer; the article cannot be published in the journal.

If the manuscript is recommended by the reviewers (or one of the reviewers) for publication subject to its revision, the Editorial Board, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy, sends the author(s) the manuscript with the attached reviews without specifying the names of the reviewers. The author is obliged to finalize the manuscript according to all comments of the reviewers. If the author does not agree with any comments of the reviewers, he/she is obliged to send a written justification of his/her position to the editor together with the revised version of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief decides whether to publish the article in the journal or send it to the reviewers once again (together with the author's explanatory note). When sending an article to the reviewers, the latter give a new statement about the possibility of publishing the article. The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or at the session of the Editorial Board.

If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they should notify the editor in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised manuscript after three months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to revise the article, the editor removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript by reviewers, the editor sends the author(s) a reasoned refusal with the attachment of reviews without specifying the names of the reviewers.

The procedure for reviewing and approving articles takes up to three months. The review period may be extended if additional review of the manuscript is required.

The final decision on the recommendation of the manuscript for publication or its rejection from publication is made at the meeting of the Editorial Board by a simple majority of votes.

After the Editorial Board makes a decision to allow the article to be published, the editor informs the author about it and specifies the publication date.

The presence of a favorable review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.


Period of review


The manuscript is sent for review immediately after its submission to the editorial office.

The period of review is one month from receipt of the manuscript by reviewer. If additional time for review is necessary, this period may be extended at the request of the reviewer.


Storage and use of reviews


The original reviews are kept in the journal’s editorial office for five years.

Manuscript reviews are not published and are used only in the internal document circulation of the editorial office, and when communicating with the authors.

The editor of the journal Penitentiary Science sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.


Procedure for resolving disputes


If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s remarks, they may apply for an additional review or withdraw the manuscript; the author should notify the editor about it and obtain proof of withdrawal the manuscript from consideration.

The editor of the journal Penitentiary Science informs the author about the progress of the manuscript review and the decision made. The information is provided only to the author of the manuscript.

If the publication of the manuscript has caused a violation of copyright or accepted norms of scientific ethics, the editor has the right to publish a refutation and to inform interested persons about the fact of violation of rights.


Procedure for the withdrawal (retraction) of articles from the journal

When considering situations related to violations of publication ethics, the editor initiates an investigation, according to the results of which the article may be withdrawn from publication.

Withdrawal (retraction) of the article is carried out at the official request of the editor or the author. Anonymous requests, as well as requests from persons who are not directly related to this problem, are not considered.

The reasons for withdrawal of articles are as follows:

detection of plagiarism in the article, including borrowings of figures, graphs, tables, etc., if the fact of plagiarism was revealed after the publication of the article; claims in terms of copyright on the article or its individual parts from third parties;

detection of the fact of publication of an article in another edition before the date of its publication in the journal;

presence of serious errors in the published article that cast doubt on its scientific value.

The retracted article is not withdrawn from the published circulation physically, nor is it removed from the journal’s website. The editor publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article and posts it on the corresponding page of the issue content on the official website of the journal. Information about retracted articles is sent to the National Electronic Library (elibrary.ru), CyberLeninka, the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications under the Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences on combating falsification of research and the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (for entering information into a single database of retracted articles).