1. The manuscript of a scientific article submitted to the journal’s editorial office is reviewed by the executive secretary for compliance with the journal’s profile, the main provisions of the requirements for publications and formatting, approved by the journal’s editorial board (section “To Authors” / “Rules for writing articles”).
    2. The executive secretary submits the article for review to two reviewers. As reviewers, both members of the editorial board of the journal and experts on the profile of the proposed manuscript from other organizations can be involved.
    3. The terms of the review may vary depending on the urgency of publication of the article and other factors, but on average do not exceed 3 weeks from the moment the manuscript is submitted to the reviewer.
    4. The editors of the journal have established the process of “bilateral blind peer review”, when neither the author nor the reviewer are informed about each other. The reviewer does not receive any information about the author, just as the reviewer does not indicate the data in the review.
    5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the author can either take them into account when preparing an updated version of the article or refute them reasonably (partially or completely). The reviewer and editor-in-chief are obligated to consider the author’s arguments.
    6. Due to the tight deadlines for publication of the journal, the article sent to the author for revision should be returned in corrected form within two weeks. In the revised manuscript in the “review” format in Microsoft Word, it is necessary to highlight in color all corrections made in the article and write explanations in the margins (if required). The article finalized (revised) by the author is re-sent for review and the response is attached to the reviewer (response option to the review “Thank you dear reviewer for a careful reading of our work, …. we tried to take into account all the comments … but at the same time … ..”). The date of receipt of the editorial office is the date of return of the revised article.
    7. The editors reserve the right to reject articles in case of refusal or inability of the author to take into account the wishes of the editors.
    8. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-consideration.
    9. If there is a negative review (s) of the manuscript or its revised version, the article is rejected with the obligatory notification of the author about the reasons for such a decision.
    10. Not allowed for publication in a scientific journal:
      • articles containing previously published material
      • Articles, designed without observing the rules for the design of articles;
      • articles whose authors refuse technical revision of articles;
      • articles whose authors do not comply with the constructive comments of the reviewer or do not refute them reasonably;
    11. After the editorial board of the journal has made a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the executive secretary of the journal informs the author about this through automatic notification and indicates the possible publication dates.
    12. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of their receipt by the editor. Works devoted to especially topical problems of science, as well as containing fundamentally new information, may, by decision of the editorial board, be published out of turn.


In the work of theсNarxoz Law and Public Policy Journal, the Editorial Board proceeds from the fact that all reviewers of the journal agree to follow the ethical principles of reviewing described below:

– The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the manuscript

– The reviewer may not be the supervisor or scientific consultant of any of the authors of the manuscript.

– Reviewers objectively evaluate the text and indicate in detail the advantages and disadvantages of the submitted manuscript.

– The peer-reviewed article is a confidential document, the reviewer does not have the right to transmit the text for review or discussion to third parties. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer, author, or third party who has gained access to the unpublished text should immediately notify the editorial office.