The journal “Criminalistics and Forensics” employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the high scientific quality of published articles.
Principles of Peer Review
The peer review process is based on the following principles:
- Confidentiality — information about authors and reviewers is not disclosed;
- Impartiality — manuscripts are evaluated objectively, without bias;
- Academic integrity — authors are responsible for the accuracy of their research, and reviewers for the validity of their assessments;
- Absence of conflict of interest — reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts that could affect their judgment.
Peer Review Process
The peer review process consists of several stages:
1. Initial Editorial Screening
The Editorial Board evaluates the submitted manuscript for:
- compliance with the journal’s scope;
- adherence to formatting requirements;
- absence of plagiarism;
- overall scientific quality.
Based on this assessment, the manuscript may be:
- sent for external peer review;
- returned to the author for revision;
- rejected.
2. External Peer Review
The manuscript is submitted to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
Reviewers assess:
- relevance of the research topic;
- scientific novelty;
- methodological soundness;
- reliability of results;
- adequacy of references;
- compliance with the journal’s requirements.
3. Review Report
Reviewers provide a reasoned report with one of the following recommendations:
- accept;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- reject.
Reviewer comments are communicated to the author through the Editorial Board.
4. Editorial Decision
The final decision is made by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ reports:
- Accept;
- Accept with revisions;
- Reject.
A manuscript may be accepted for publication only after all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed and the manuscript fully complies with the journal’s requirements.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
The journal applies a double-blind review system:
- reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
- authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Authors must ensure that the manuscript is anonymized by:
- removing personal data from the text;
- avoiding self-identifying references;
- deleting metadata from submitted files.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
To protect confidentiality and intellectual property:
- reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part thereof to external services, including artificial intelligence tools, without explicit permission from the Editorial Board.
Review Timeline
- initial screening — up to 30 calendar days;
- peer review — up to 60 days;
- total review and publication process — up to 120 days.
The date of acceptance is defined as the date of receipt of a positive review.
Authors’ Rights
In case of rejection, authors have the right to:
- receive the review report;
- submit a revised version, if recommended by the Editorial Board.
Requirements for Reviewers
Reviewers must:
- possess relevant expertise in the subject area;
- maintain objectivity and impartiality;
- treat all materials as confidential;
- provide clear, constructive, and substantiated feedback.
Evaluation Criteria
Manuscripts are evaluated based on:
- relevance and significance of the research;
- connection to current scientific and practical issues;
- quality of literature review;
- consistency between objectives and results;
- validity of conclusions;
- clarity and accuracy of terminology;
- compliance with formatting requirements;
- adherence to academic integrity standards.
Final Provisions
A positive review does not guarantee publication.
The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board.