The Annals of Legal History uses double-blind peer review.
1. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are examined by the Executive Editor of the Journal who examines them for compliance with the subject scope, archival editorial style, apparent scientific validity, topical importance, timeliness, appropriate references and length. Precise requirements are given on the Journal Website (Guide for Authors). The Executive Editor informs the author about the status of the manuscript by an automatic e-mail notification after making appropriate changes in the profile of the author on the Journal Website. The manuscript that does not comply with the formal requirements is not accepted for publication, which is reported to the author by an automatic notification.
2. The Executive Editor has the manuscript sent to one or, if necessary, two reviewers in the field. Reviewers are members of the Journal Editorial Board, highly qualified scholars and experts from other organizations with in-depth expertise and experience in a particular scientific field.
3. It takes the maximum of three months to have the manuscript reviewed.
4. The author receives no data on reviewer(s).
5. If the reviewer recommends that the author revises the manuscript, the Executive Editor of the Journal sends the review to the author with a suggestion they take it into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript or a rebuttal (partial or point-by-point) to the reviewer’s comments.
6. Revisions must be completed and submitted within a month after the author receives the reviewer’s comments. The author is also to attach a letter with answers to all the comments and explanations of all the changes made to the manuscript (in a separate file, and highlighted in the text of the manuscript). The revised manuscript and the letter are to be sent to the reviewer. The date the editors receive the manuscript is the date of the submission of its revised version.
7. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts if authors do not follow the editors’ and reviewers’ recommendations.
8. The manuscript rejected by the reviewer is not to be re-submitted.
9. In case of negative reviews on the manuscript or its revised version, the manuscript is rejected with a mandatory notification of the author on the reasons for such a decision.
10. The Journal does not publish:
– manuscripts containing previously published material;
– manuscripts that do not conform to the Journal formatting standards;
– manuscripts by authors who refuse from the technical revision of their manuscripts;
– manuscripts by authors who do not follow the constructive recommendations of the reviewer or do not rebut them;
– series of manuscripts that are separate stages of an unfinished research.
11. After the Editorial Board makes a decision to accept the manuscript for publication, the Executive Editor informs the author by an automatic notification and indicates the possible date of publication.
12. The order of the publication of manuscripts is determined by the registration date of the manuscript submission. The Editorial Board reserves the right to publish manuscripts of particular significance and novelty out of turn.
The Editorial Office does not discuss with their authors the content of manuscripts, the principles of their writing and formatting manuscripts, and does not correct manuscripts so that they meet the Journal standards.