After submission of a manuscript to the editorial office of the "Sociology of Law", the paper undergoes a double-blind peer review process: reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. 

STAGES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Preliminary assessment (up to 5 days):

• verification of the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
• plagiarism screening (using the StrikePlagiarism system or similar software);
• verification of compliance with formatting and structural requirements;
• editorial decision: send the manuscript for peer review or reject it.

2. Appointment of reviewers (2–3 days):

Reviewers of scientific manuscripts are appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected carefully, taking into account their academic qualifications, research experience, and publications related to the subject of the submitted manuscript.

Each reviewer receives an invitation to review and an anonymized version of the manuscript. If a selected reviewer considers themselves not sufficiently competent to evaluate the manuscript or realizes that they will not be able to provide a review within the required timeframe, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer selection criteria:

• a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) or Doctor of Sciences degree;
• scientific publications related to the topic of the submitted manuscript;
• publications in journals indexed in international scientometric databases (Scopus and/or Web of Science);
• absence of any conflict of interest with the author(s).

3. Peer review (2–3 weeks):

During the review process, the reviewer evaluates:

• the relevance of the research topic to law branches;
• scientific novelty and practical significance of the results;
• correspondence between the title and the content of the article;
• completeness and quality of the literature review;
• correctness of the research methodology and methods applied;
• reliability of the obtained results;
• validity of the conclusions;
• compliance with formatting requirements and the quality of the academic language.

4. Possible reviewer recommendations:

• accept the article for publication without changes;
• accept the article after minor editorial revisions;
• request revision and resubmission (in this case, the revised manuscript may be sent for a second round of peer review);
• reject the article without further consideration.

5. Author revision:

• the author receives the anonymous review;
• prepares a revised version of the manuscript;
• submits a response to the reviewers’ comments explaining the changes made.

6. Final decision:

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding publication based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s editorial policy. 

Documentation

• reviews are prepared using the journal’s standard review form;
• all reviews and related materials are stored in the editorial archive for 3 years. 

Timeframes

• total time from submission to the first editorial decision: 4–5 weeks;
• time allocated for author revisions: 7 days;
• time for re-review (if required): 7 days. 

Authors have the right to submit an appeal against a rejection decision within 10 days of receiving the notification. The appeal is reviewed by an independent member of the editorial board.