- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
- » Retraction policy
- » Generative AI policies
Aim and Scope
The purpose of the creation of the scientific and practical journal «NORTH CAUCASUS LEGAL VESTNIK» is to study problems in the field of theory and history of state and law, the history of political and legal doctrines, constitutional and municipal law, civil, business, private international law and civil procedure, criminal, penal enforcement law, criminalistics, criminology of criminal procedure, administrative and service law, administrative justice, labor law, environmental law. The tasks of the scientific journal «NORTH CAUCASUS LEGAL VESTNIK» are the publication of original scientific articles, the development of scientific and educational communications, and the creation of a creative environment for the open exchange of information. The target audience is the scientific community of researchers of higher education (scientists, teachers of higher education, heads of universities, representatives of educational authorities, applicants for academic degrees).
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
Once a quarter
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
An bilateral anonymous ("blind") peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik». This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 5-6 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
- Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright. - If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
- We politely request that the editor to be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
- If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
- The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
- Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
- Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
- Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
- Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: «North Caucasus Legal VestniK».
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. The Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» is personally and independently responsible for making the decision on publication, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Society. The credibility of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision on publication. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council of the journal «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik»,while being limited by the current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality, and plagiarism.
2.2. Fair play – the editor-in-chief should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. The Editor-in-Chief, the Editor, the Editorial Board, and the Editorial Council of the «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to anyone except the Authors, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other scientific consultants, and the Publisher unless necessary.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Journal editors must recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely, collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council in reviewing the work instead of making a decision) in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies, and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a other member of the editorial board instead to consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
- 5. An editor of a journal who provides convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should inform the Editor-in-Chief (and/or the relevant scientific society) as soon as possible in order to notify them of the changes, withdrawal of the publication, expressions of concern, and other relevant statements.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – The editor together with the Editor-in-Chief should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
- Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review helps to make a decision on publication and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author to improve the quality of their work. Peer review is a necessary part of formal scientific communication and is at the core of the scientific approach. The Editor-in-Chief shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to publication are required to perform significant work on reviewing the manuscript.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
- Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation
Author fees
Publication in “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
“North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
The editorial board of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.
Preprints
The editorial board of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.'
A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik".
The author must notify the editorial board of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.
It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.
Do not delete the preprint text.
Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
The editorial board of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.
Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik".
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
Final Versions of Manuscripts
The editorial board of the “North Caucasus Legal Vestnik" allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher.
Retraction policy
The Editors adhere to the following retraction policy.
Retraction purpose.
- The Editors can retract a published article to inform the readers that the article contains faulty / unreliable data.
- The Editors can retract a published article to inform the readers about plagiarisms, an unreported conflict of interests, or doubling, i.e. if new information has been revealed that can affect the interpretation of the published data or recommendations on their use.
An article can be retracted if the Editors found out that the article violates the ethics of scientific publishing.
- if the article contains invalid data, be it the result of a deliberate violation, miscalculation, experimental error, or misprint;
- the Author(s) published one and the same data or manuscript in several journals without a serious reason, authorization, or cross-reference;
- the bulk of the article was copied from a previously published work by a different author.
Retraction Procedure
- Retraction can be initiated by Authors, Readers, Reviewers, Editors, and other Publishers by officially appealing to the Editorial Board. An expertise conducted by the Editorial Board can also trigger a retraction procedure.
- If the Editorial Board failed to answer a retraction claim from the author within 10 days, the author is free to appeal to the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP).
- If the Editorial Board decides to retract the article based on the violations mentioned above, the Corresponding Author is sent a notification that explains the reasons for the retraction.
- The final decision takes into account the explanation given by the Author. Should the author fail to respond within 10 days, the Editors are free to retract the publication without the Author’s concern. Irrespective of the fact whether the Authors accept the standpoint of the editorial board or not, the retraction is an abiding procedure.
- The retraction protocol is sent to the corresponding author, the ASEP, eLIBRARY.RU, and CyberLeninka.
- A retraction note, which states its reason and date, is published both in the paper and online versions of the Journal. After that, the article will be marked as RETRACTED in all reference databases. Retracted articles are excluded from all citation indices and reference lists and do not affect electronic calculations of one’s personal scientific achievements.
- After the retraction procedure has been completed, the Editorial Board retains the right not to accept other manuscripts submitted by the author(s) in question for a certain period.
Generative AI policies
The jurnal «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik» policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence
Version 1.0, approved 15/01/2026
We welcome the responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research and the preparation of manuscripts for the scientific periodical «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik», published by the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education South Russian Institute of Management - a branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. AI can be a powerful tool for improving the quality and efficiency of your work.
FOR AUTHORS
If you use AI to prepare a manuscript to be submitted to one of our Journal, please stick to the following basic principles.
Copyright responsibility:
You are always fully responsible for the content of your manuscript, even for the parts generated or processed by AI. Generative language models, image processing models, or analytical and optimization algorithms do not release you from the responsibility for reliability, scientific validity, and ethics.
Disclosure:
Please indicate in the Generative AI Declaration where and how you applied AI tools, e.g., data analysis, text generation, images, etc. Failure to comply with disclosure requirements is a violation of publication ethics.
Ethics and accuracy:
AI often generates false or incorrect information, so make sure you check all facts and references for hallucinations.
Data safety:
Refrain from uploading confidential information, personal data, or any other sensitive information to public AI tools.
You may use AI to improve language and style:
Feel free to use AI to make your text more readable or to check your grammar and spelling but never for text generation;
for data synthesis and generalization:
AI may help you to find references, provide an overview of a research field, or systematize data;
for data analysis:
You may use AI algorithms to process and analyze large datasets or for pattern recognition, provided that you do not fail to declare and describe the methodology in detail;
to create visual materials:
Any use of AI in creating graphs, charts, and figures requires a disclosure and confirmation that the data have not been altered;
to format your manuscript:
You may use AI to classify references, extract keywords, draft abstracts, and check the formatting compliance.
You may not use AI for passive or hidden generation of scientific content:
You absolutely cannot present fully or partially AI-generated text, data, results, or conclusions as your own without explicit and detailed disclosure. You should not list AI tools as an author or co-author, nor cite AI tools as an author. Authorship implies responsibility for the content that can only be attributed to and performed by humans;
to produce fake data:
It is strictly forbidden to use AI to create fictitious data, fake experimental results, or generate artificial datasets. Any generated or simulated data should be disclosed and described in the methods, with limitations properly specified and justified. If you used fake data to train AI models, be ready to provide source codes and settings for verification;
to manipulate images:
You cannot change images, automatically or manually, to distort the results, unless such changes are described, justified, and approved by the relevant copyright and institutional procedures. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, noise reduction, restoration, etc. are acceptable if accompanied by a statement about the type of changes, tools, parameters, and justification;
to violate the confidentiality and security of personal data:
Do not upload personal data or other confidential information to cloud or third-party AI services. Do not process confidential information using AI services with an unknown data storage/usage policy. Either choose tools with documented security guarantees or apply proper depersonalization;
for copyright infringement and plagiarism:
You cannot use AI to compile copyrighted text, graphics, or figures without proper citation. A text generated from uncited sources is considered plagiarism. Do not use AI to paraphrase, summarize, or translate other people’s publications unless you can control the process and check the results;
to compile conclusions and recommendations:
We do not publish AI-generated conclusions, predictions, scenarios, and recommendations;
for mass submission and fake review:
Do not use AI to email your manuscripts or fake reviews by creating fictitious accounts or circumventing fair peer review procedures in any other way;
to prevent reproducibility and verification:
Your disclosure statement should mention all AI models involved, i.e., architecture (if relevant), model version, hyperparameters, training data sources, validation procedures, reproduction metrics and code/scripts, a link to the repository, etc. If you used corporate or non-public models, be ready to provide access to the input data, seed values, and generation parameters to prove reproducibility. If unlicensed to do so, be ready to describe the restrictions in detail and provide alternative ways to verify your research results.
Responsibility and consequences
Should you fail to comply with the aforementioned requirements, it may lead to doubts in the general reliability of your research. Consequences range from multiple corrections to retraction, ban from publication, and filing an official complaint to your affiliation to investigate your case. If we reveal major data falsification, confidentiality violations, or fraud, we will not hesitate to transfer the materials to the authorities in charge.
AI declaration
You are expected to disclose the use of AI tools at all stages of manuscript preparation, including:
-text generation, even in such formal parts as introduction, discussion, conclusions, or annotations;
-data preparation or validation, e.g., statistical analysis, visualization, or data synthesis;
-translation, paraphrasing, or editing;
-searching for relevant publications or compiling references;
-processing/creating figures, graphs, charts, audio/video materials, etc.
AI declaration is made in the Study Objects and Methods (for research articles)
or in a separate section entitled AI Declaration (for other types of articles).
For each AI use, provide:
name and version;
company (if applicable);
purpose and methods;
prompts (if possible).
E.g., During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [name
of tool/service] for the purpose of [specify purpose]. Or: AI tool X was used for stylistic editing. AI tool Y was used for primary data categorization. ChatGPT4 was used to generate introduction, which was subsequently reviewed and edited by the author(s). The author(s) assume(s) full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the published work.
AI security
When processing data, stick to local or certified solutions that provide data control.
Depersonalize your data and document the anonymization procedure.
Save log files of your interaction with AI tools, including prompts, generation parameters, and responses in case we ask you to provide them.
Double-check all AI-generated facts, links, figures, and conclusions for hallucinations, i.e., false but plausible information.
Basic grammar and spell-checkers, such as Microsoft Word, are not generative AI and thus do not require disclosure statement.
FOR REVIEWERS
If you integrate AI in your review, make sure you provide transparency, protect confidentiality, and maintain scientific integrity.
This policy applies to all external and internal reviewers of all types of publications, as well as to other editorial staff who use AI to prepare recommendations for reviews.
Useful as it might seem, AI cannot substitute professional expertise. Please respect confidentiality requirements and disclose the use of AI to maintain the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers.
Basic principles
Reviewing is a professional, independent, and expert-based process. Any AI tool is no more than an auxiliary tool that cannot substitute human judgment. Whether you use AI or not, you remain responsible for the completeness, accuracy, and ethics of your review.
You may use AI for better readability:
Feel free to use AI to improve the style, grammar, formatting, and structure of your review text, provided that the assessment and scientific criticism belong to you, not the AI;
to conduct an express search and summarization of publicly available information:
You may use AI to extract key facts from non-specialized sources. Make sure that by doing so you do not violate the confidentiality of the manuscript;
to use special AI tools for methodological assessment:
For example, you can use AI to check statistics. Do not use uncertified tools and always confirm the obtained results by an independent reviewer’s expertise.
You may not use AI to upload the manuscript into public or cloud AI:
No texts, data, figures, tables, or any other parts of the manuscript you are entrusted with should ever enter public or cloud AI without the explicit permission of the editors and compliance with confidentiality rules;
to generate reviews:
You are not allowed to generate scientific value assessments or recommendations as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review is outside of the scope of AI tools;
to use AI tools that store or index uploaded materials:
Some AI tools can use uploaded data to train models, thus violating confidentiality and copyrights;
to transfer data to third parties:
You cannot use AI services to share confidential or unpublished information with third parties;
to create unreliable or misleading reviews and comments.
Confidentiality
When you are invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document.
Before using any AI service, please check the service terms and the data processing policy. Do not use personalized AI if it stores or uses the uploaded data for training or has uncertain storage practices.
If you absolutely cannot refrain from using AI, obtain the consent of the editorial board. We may offer you to use internal or certified tools that guarantee confidentiality.
Use our data retention policy to store and delete any intermediate AI-generated files that contain parts of the manuscript.
AI declaration
If you used AI for any other purpose but spellcheck/grammar, indicate it in your note to the editorial board. Specify the name of the tool and its functions (for example, «to generalize the methods», «to verify statistics», «to improve readability»).
Disclosure statement is especially important if the AI influenced your value judgments or recommendation, e.g., AI found flaws with the research.
Disclosure does not imply that you may share the data with third parties. It is necessary for transparency and for the editors to assess the appropriateness and safety of using the AI tools.
Quality and validation
You are obliged to check the conclusions proposed by the AI. It cannot substitute your expert judgement on such issues as research design, statistical correctness, data interpretation, conclusions, etc.
If you apply AI to verify statistics or images, please document the procedure to provide explanations if required.
Conflicts of interests
Do not hesitate to mention it if you are financially connected with the company that developed the AI tool.
Responsibilities and consequences
If you violate the author’s confidentiality rights or copyrights by uploading the manuscript onto unverified AI service or by any other way, we consider it a serious breach and start disciplinary action, e.g., retract your reviewer’s rights and inform the authorities in charge.
FOR EDITORS
This Policy also ensures responsible, ethical, and transparent use of AI technologies by us, i.e., editors the jurnal «North Caucasus Legal Vestnik». We recognize the potential of AI to make editing more effective but emphasize the need to maintain academic integrity, confidentiality, and professional judgment.
This Policy applies to all editors of scientific journals issued by the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education South Russian Institute of Management - a branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Basic principles
Responsibility:
We are fully responsible for all editorial decisions made with or without AI, which we treat as a support tool that does not substitute human judgment.
Disclosure:
Any use of AI in critical editorial processes should be documented and disclosed, if necessary.
Ethics:
The use of AI should not violate the ethical standards of scientific publications, including the principles of authorship, confidentiality, conflict of interests, and research integrity.
Confidentiality:
Confidential manuscripts or information should never be uploaded to publicly available AI tools that do not guarantee data confidentiality and fail to comply with personal data protection requirements.
Reliability and verification:
Any results obtained with the help of AI must be carefully checked and verified because AI is known to generate inaccurate, biased, or irrelevant data.
No bias:
We are alert to potential bias in AI algorithms and ensure that its use does not lead to discrimination or unfair treatment of authors.
We use AI to check up grammar, spelling, and stylistics:
Using AI may improve the readability of a manuscript or other materials;
for translation:
We may turn to AI tools if the manuscript is submitted in a language other than the working languages of the journal, or to translate individual phrases incorporated in the text;
for references:
AI tools may be used to find relevant articles or to structure search results;
for initial editing:
AI can identify plagiarism, wrong formatting, obvious omissions in references, etc., but it cannot assess scientific content or ethical issues;
to extract keywords and compile abstracts:
AI tools may be used to identify keywords or draft abstracts. The latter however are to be edited and approved by human editors;
for summary:
AI may be used to summarize long texts for prompt understanding but not for scientific evaluation.
We do not use AI to make editorial decisions:
Decisions about rejecting, accepting, or revision belong to the human editor;
to generate scientific content:
Only human editors can write, paraphrase, or modify research sections, write letters to reviewers, publish comments, etc.;
to risk confidentiality:
On no account do we upload manuscripts, unpublished data, results, conclusions, or any other confidential information to publicly available and potentially unsafe AI tools;
to evaluate reviews:
We do not use AI to evaluate the quality or content of reviews submitted by experts;
to fake data:
We do not apply AI to generate or modify data, figures, or any other content that can be used to falsify scientific results;
to select reviewers:
Selection or rejection of potential reviewers requires human control, as does the assessment of conflicts of interests.
Data security
We treat all submitted materials as confidential.
We cannot use any AI tools that fail to comply with the publisher’s standards for data protection and privacy.
We do not use AI tools that store or use the uploaded data for training unless they explicitly guarantee confidentiality.
We do not use AI services to share manuscripts and personal data of our authors and reviewers with third party unless approved by the publisher.
AI disclosure
If AI was involved in reviewing or editing, we are ready to provide detailed explanation at the publisher’s request.
Responsibility and consequences
Violation of this Policy may result in disciplinary action, including revocation of editorial authority and termination of cooperation with the publisher. Other actions may follow if the violations affect scientific integrity or confidentiality.
UPDATES TO THIS POLICY
We shall review and update this Policy to comply with the rapidly evolving AI technologies and best practices in scientific publishing.
