Penal law Академия ФСИН России - Эдиторум

Information about authors
Names are given in full, without abbreviations. The editorial office recommends the uniform spelling of names’ transliteration in all articles of the author. The editors transliterate names according to the standard BSI from website http://translit.net.
Affiliance. Author’s full affiliation (including position, name of the department, faculty and university, address and e-mail address). If the author affiliates him/herself with a public organization or institution, please, supply adequate information on the organization’s full title and address. The position is indicated in full, without abbreviations. Adjuncts, graduate students, doctoral students and applicants must indicate their status and the department to which they are attached, in full, without abbreviations.
Academic title and degree are indicated in full, without abbreviations.
Individual numbers of authors in the following database systems: ORCID, ResearcherID, Scopus Author ID.

An abstract
250–400 words, determined by the content of the article. It includes the characteristics of the researched problem, objectives, research methods and materials of the study, as well as the results and main conclusions of the study. It is advisable to point out the main scientific result of the work. Unencrypted abbreviations, for the first time entered terms (including neologisms) are not allowed. For articles in Russian language it is recommended to use the Interstate standard 7.9–95 «Summary and abstract. General requirements».

Key words
5-10 words or phrases. The list of basic concepts and categories used to describe the problem under study.

Main body of the article
Structure. The body of the text should be divided into meaningful sections with individual headings (1-5 words) to disclose the essence of this section. Every article should contain Conclusions, where the author(s) are expected to ground meaningful inferences. Implications for a future research might also find their place in Conclusions. The editorial Board recommends using the IMRAD structure for the article. This structure is reference and can be adapted (expanded and (or) more detailed) depending on the characteristics and logic of the research.

Text of the article (design)
The text may contain tables and figures, which should have separate numbering (one numbering system for tables; another – for figures). They should be placed in the text at the appropriate paragraph (just after its reference).

References in text
References must be in Harvard style. References should be clearly cited in the body of the text, e.g. (Smith, 2006) or (Smith, 2006, p.45), if an exact quotation is being used.
Excessive and unreasonable quoting is not allowed. Self-citations are not recommended.

Bibliographic list
At the end of the paper the author(s) should present full References in the alphabetical order as follows:
sources are given in the order of their citation in the text (not alphabetically) and are not repeated. Interval of pages of scientific articles and parts of books must be indicated (P. 54-59), and in monographs, textbooks, etc. – the total number of pages in the publication (p. 542).

Ethics of publication

The section is based on the materials of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Introduction
1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but it also makes a significant contribution to the relevant field development of scientific knowledge.
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but he is also responsible for compliance with all current guidelines in published works.

2. Editorial responsibilities
2.1. The decision to publish
All articles submitted to the Journal undergo blind peer-review. Each article on submission is reviewed for relevance to the scope of the Journal by the Editor-in-Chief. Article that do not meet the basic criteria are rejected at this stage and authors promptly informed. Articles that meet basic requirements are initially reviewed by at least two reviewers. The recommendation of the reviewers informs the decision of the editorial board to accept on the conditions that the concerns raised by the reviewers are addressed or to reject. Where there is a notable disagreement between the reports of the two initial reviewers, a third reviewer may be consulted. The decision to publish is made by the Editorial Board on the base of the results of blind peer-review.
2.2. Conscientiousness / decency
Editorial office work with the intellectual content of manuscripts/researches regardless of authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences.
2.3. Privacy
Staff of the editorial office is obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for authors, reviewers, possible reviewers, other scientific consultants and the publisher, without necessity.

3. Reviewers' responsibilities
3.1. Implementation
Any selected reviewer, who is not qualified to review the work or does not have enough time to complete it quickly, should notify the editor and ask to be excluded from the review process.
3.2. Privacy
Any work, received by review, should be treated as a confidential document. It can not be opened and discussed with any persons, who do not have the authority of the editor.
3.3. Articles requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Unreasonable criticism of the manuscript is unacceptable. Reviewers must clearly and reasonably express their opinions.
3.4. Primary sources recognition
Reviewers should identify significant published works, which are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. For each statement (observation, derivation, or argument), previously published, the manuscript must be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also draw the Editor-in-Chief attention to the detection of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scientific competence of the reviewer.

4. Authors' responsibilities
4.1. Article requirements
4.1.1. The authors should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data, underlying the work, should be presented accurately. The work should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or inaccurate statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review scientific articles should also be accurate and objective and authors’ point of view should be clearly identified.
4.2. Data access and storage Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the work for review by editorial. Authors should be ready to provide open access to such information, if possible, and in any case be ready to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1. Authors should make sure that they have written entirely original work, and in case of use of other authors’ works or statements, they must provide appropriate bibliographical references and quotations.
4.3.2. Plagiarism in all forms is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication is also unacceptable.
4.5. Primary sources recognition
Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the presented work. Data received in private, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or discussion with other persons, should not be used or presented without the written permission of the original source. Information received from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grants, should not be also used without authors written permission to use work, related to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of publication
4.6.1. The authors of the publication can be only persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented study. All those, who have been directly involved in the study, should be identified as co-authors. In cases when research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area of the research project, they should be identified as persons, who have made an important assistance to the study.
4.6.2. The author should make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-authors and those who have not participated in the study are not listed as co-authors, that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and have agreed to present it for publication.
4.7. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
4.7.1. All authors are required to disclose in their works financial or other existing conflicts of interest, which may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest, that must be disclosed, include employment, consulting, stock ownership, fees, expert opinion, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be discovered simultaneously with the submission of the article.
4.8. Significant errors in published works
In case the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author should inform the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal and interact with him in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If the Editor-in-Chief or publisher has received information about errors in the article from another person, the author is obliged to remove the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

5. Publisher duties
5.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures to facilitate the ethical performance of editors, reviewers and authors of the Journal in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production has not affected editorial’s decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support the editorial of the Journal in the consideration of claims to ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and (or) publishers, if it contributes to the performance of editors duties.
5.3. The publisher should promote qualified research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for removal and correction of errors.
5.4. The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice), if it is necessary.

The process of articles reviewing

THE ORDER OF REVIEWING AND ARTICLE PROCESSION

1. Review of articles is carried out by members of the Editorial Board, as well as by invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant field of knowledge. The decision to choose a reviewer for the article examination is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The review period is 2–4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
2. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to work with the manuscript in case of an obvious conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the article materials. Following the results of reviewing of the article, the reviewer gives the following recommendations (each decision is justified):
the article is recommended for publication in present form;
the article is recommended for publication after correcting deficiencies without re-review;
the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings, noted by the reviewer, and for re-reviewing;
the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
the article cannot be published in the journal.
Copies of reviews are sent to the authors of articles.
3. If the review contains recommendations for correction of the article, the Editor-in-Chief sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account, preparing a new version of the article. The author can reasonably refute these recommendations (partially or completely). Article re-working should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article, modified by the author, must be resent for review.
4. In case of authors’ refusal to correct their works for further publishing, they need (in written or oral form) to inform the editor about their decision. If the authors do not return the changed version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to rework the article, the editorial office removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are informed about the removal of the article from the register due to the expiration of the deadline for revision/reworking.
5. If the author and reviewers have any unsolvable contradictions regarding the article/work, the editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor at editorial Board meetings.
6. The decision to refuse or to publish the manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The article, not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board for publication, is not accepted for representing. The refusal of publication is sent to the author by e-mail.
7. Two positive reviews is not a sufficient reason for article’s publication. The final decision on the publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
8. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.

The subscription and the acquisition

Printed version of the journal "Penal law" is distributed exclusively by subscription.

Subscription can be made in any post office according to the united catalogue «Russian press» or online. Internet catalogue «Press subscription». Subscription index is 71616.

Publication fee

Publication in the journal is free. The editors do not charge authors for preparation, placement and printing of materials.

Editorial board

Skiba Andrey — Editor-in-Chief
The Academy of the FPS of Russia (penal law department, head of the department, e-mail: apskiba@mail.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Ryazan', Russian Federation

Grushin Fedor Vladimirovich — deputy editor-in-chief
Academy of the FPS of Russia (professor of penal law department, e-mail: fedor062@yandex.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
Ryazan', Russian Federation

Nesterov Pavel Nikolaevich — responsible secretary
Academy of the FPS of Russia (head of publishing department)
Ryazan, Russian Federation

Bukalerova Lyudmila Aleksandrovna — associate editor
Peoples' friendship University of Russia (head of criminal law, criminal procedure and criminology department, e-mail: bukalerova_la@rudn.university)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Moskva, Russian Federation

Gorazd Meshko — associate editor
University of Maribor (Director of the Institute of criminal justice and security, gorazd.mesko@fvv.uni-mb.si)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
Lyublyana, Slovenia

Detkov Aleksey Petrovich — associate editor
Altai State University (head of criminal law and criminology department, e-mail: kafupik@law.asu.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
docent
Barnaul, Russian Federation

Kashuba Yuriy Anatol'evich — associate editor
Academy of the FPS of Russia (professor of penal law department, e-mail: koshianatol@yandex.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Ryazan', Russian Federation

Kiyko Nikolay — associate editor
Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus (Department penal law, Head of the Department)
candidate of jurisprudence sciences
docent
Minsk, Belarus

Kozachenko Ivan YAkovlevich — associate editor
Ural State Law University (head of criminal law department, e-mail: uglaw@yandex.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation

Malikov Boris Zufarovich — associate editor
Ufa Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (professor of criminal law and criminology department, e-mail: malikov_bz@mail.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Ufa, Russian Federation

Navaan Gantulga — associate editor
Law enforcement service University under the Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs of Mongolia (deputy of the Training Institute for personnel executing court judgments, e-mail: n_gntlga@yahoo.com)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Ulan-Bator, Mongolia

Orlov Vladislav Nikolaevich — associate editor
Academy of management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (professor of criminal policy department, e-mail: vlad-orlov@mail.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
docent
Moskva, Russian Federation

Seliverstov Vyacheslav — associate editor
Lomonosov Moscow state University (criminal law and criminology department, professor, e-mail: vis_home@list.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Moskva, Russian Federation

Skripchenko Nina Yur'evna — associate editor
Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M. V. Lomonosov (professor of criminal law and procedure department, e-mail: n.skripchenko@narfu.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
docent
Arhangel'sk, Russian Federation

Tereshchenko Tat'yana Georgievna — associate editor
Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus (deputy head of penal law department, e-mail: tati2034@yandex.ru)
candidate of jurisprudence sciences
docent
Minsk, Belarus

Utkin Vladimir Aleksandrovich — associate editor
National Research Tomsk State University (Director of Law Institute, e-mail: utkin@ui.tsu.ru)
doctor of jurisprudence sciences
professor
Tomsk, Russian Federation

THE THEORY OF PENAL LAW

Mission

Confirmation

Регистрация