Dear colleagues:

The following review template provides a brief idea of what the editor expects from the reviewer and helps speed up the review process. The template makes the process of reviewing the article as objective, specific and time-saving as possible for the reviewer. However, the process of reviewing a scientific article itself has many variations in the presentation of information from the reviewer. The reviewer can expand the number of criteria for evaluating the article by using additional criteria along with those specified in the template.

Sincerely and with gratitude for your hard work,

editor of the journal Penitentiary Science




to the editor

of the research and practice journal Penitentiary Science




of the manuscript (title of the article)


  1. Compliance of the content of the article with the journal’s subject matter

– content

– presentation style

  1. Compliance of the article with the declared scientific specialty code.
  2. Compliance of the content of the article with the topic, goal, and objectives stated in the article.
  3. Scientific relevance of the article.


– Degree of novelty (completely new information / fairly new information / one more example / nothing new)

– Relevance of the research area (high / medium / low)

– Importance of the results (highly important / significant / non-essential)

– Priority of publication (extremely urgent / top /
in the order of submission)

  1. Scientific level of the publication: correctness of the methods used, conceptual framework.
  2. Argumentativeness of the article.
  3. Use of factual data (in the context of Russian and world research).
  4. Practical importance.
  5. Language of presentation (scientific content, intelligibility, consistency).
  6. Sources used, their qualitative and quantitative characteristics. Presence of sources by authors from countries other than Russia.

– Are the works of other authors on the topic of the article cited sufficiently?

– Does the article meet generally accepted international requirements in terms of the use of general scientific terminology, special terminology, international system of units?

– Do the data, the designations of measurement units, and their values given in the general and experimental parts, tables, and figures agree with each other?

  1. Compliance of the article with the editor’s requirements for manuscripts submitted for publication (the volume and the content of the abstract; the list of references and page references in accordance with GOST standards; the volume of the article, etc.).

  Requirements for articles are posted on the journal's website in the “Authors” section.

  1. Does the final part of the article contain the information about the contribution to the development of theoretical and applied science made by the author’s work?
  2. The reviewer’s comments:

In this section, the reviewers generally express their opinion about the article, concretize their comments and give suggestions.

It should be noted that the editor finds the following review most useful: a review that shows that the reviewer has carefully read the manuscript, gave a thorough consideration to the most important sections of the article, presented constructive criticism for the authors and made a recommendation that is commensurate with the rest of the review. Thus, it is important that the text of the review contains a critical analysis and a deep assessment of the article submitted for examination.

  1. Recommendations (in this section, it is necessary to once again indicate the compliance/non-compliance of the article with the declared code of the scientific specialty)

– Publication of the article as it was submitted.

– Publication of the article after minor corrections indicated in the review.

– Publication of the article after major revision and an additional review.

– The article cannot be recommended for publication.


Information about the reviewer

Full name

Academic degree and academic rank

Contact information:


Office phone (with the city code)

Mobile phone

Fax (with the city code)

Postal address (with the ZIP code)


Personal signature of the reviewer, certified at the place of work