Preview

Digital Law Journal

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The purpose of the Digital Law Journal is to provide a theoretical understanding of the issues that arise in Law and Economics in the digital environment, as well as to create a platform for finding the most suitable version of their legal regulation.

This aim is especially vital for the Russian legal community, following the development of the digital economy in our country. The rest of the world has faced the same challenge, more or less successfully; an extensive practice of digital economy regulation has been developed, which provides good material for conducting comparative research on this issue.

Theoretically, "Digital Law" is based on "Internet Law", formed in English-language scientific literature, which a number of researchers consider as a separate branch of Law.

The journal establishes the following objectives:

  • Publication of research in the field of digital law and digital economy in order to intensify international scientific interaction and cooperation within the scientific community of experts.
  • Meeting the information needs of professional specialists, government officials, representatives of public associations, and other citizens and organizations; this concerns assessment (scientific and legal) of modern approaches to the legal regulation of the digital economy.
  • Dissemination of the achievements of current legal and economic science, and the improvement of professional relationships and scientific cooperative interaction between researchers and research groups in both Russia and foreign countries.

The journal publishes articles in the following fields of developments and challenges facing legal regulation of the digital economy:

  1. Legal provision of information security, and the formation of a unified digital environment of trust (identification of subjects in the digital space, legally significant information exchange, etc.).
  2. Regulatory support for electronic civil turnover; comprehensive legal research of data in the context of digital technology development, including personal data, public data, and "Big Data".
  3. Legal support for data collection, storage, and processing.
  4. Regulatory support for the introduction and use of innovative technologies in the financial market (cryptocurrencies, blockchain, etc.).
  5. Regulatory incentives for the improvement of the digital economy; legal regulation of contractual relations arising in connection with the development of digital technologies; network contracts (smart contracts); legal regulation of E-Commerce.
  6. The formation of legal conditions in the field of legal proceedings and notaries according to the development of the digital economy.
  7. Legal provision of digital interaction between the private sector and the state; a definition of the "digital objects" of taxation and legal regime development for the taxation of business activities in the field of digital technologies; a digital budget; a comprehensive study of the legal conditions for using the results of intellectual activity in the digital economy; and digital economy and antitrust regulation.
  8. Legal regulation of the digital economy in the context of integration processes.
  9. Comprehensive research of legal and ethical aspects related to the development and application of artificial intelligence and robotics systems.
  10. Changing approaches to training and retraining of legal personnel in the context of digital technology development; new requirements for the skills of lawyers.

The subject of the journal corresponds to the group of specialties "Legal Sciences" 12.00.00 and "Economic Sciences" 08.00.00 according to the HAC nomenclature.

The journal publishes articles in Russian and English.

The journal will publish quarterly, thereby releasing 4 issues per year.

 

Section Policies

ARTICLES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EDITORIAL
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ESSAYS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
COMMENT
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ARTICLES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
REVIEWS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
BOOK REVIEWS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
WELCOME NOTE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
NOTE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
INTERVIEW
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

The Digital Law Journal is published four times a year – in March, June, September and December.

 

Open Access Policy

The Digital Law Journal is an open access journal. All manuscripts are made freely available to readers immediately upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that manuscripts 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 manuscripts, 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.

 

Archiving

  • National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

 

Peer-Review

A bilateral anonymous (double-blind) peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of the Digital Law Journal. This implies that neither peer reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor author maintains any contact with the peer reviewer.

  1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of legal and economic sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose experts for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
  2. Each manuscript is sent to 2 reviewers.
  3. 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 peer reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
  • to accept a manuscript in its present state;
  • to accept a manuscript subject to minor corrections without repeated peer review procedure;
  • to accept a manuscript subject to minor corrections with additional peer review procedure;
  • accept a manuscript subject to major corrections with additional peer review procedure;
  • to reject a manuscript outright.
  1. If the peer 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.
  2. 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.
  3. If author and peer reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
  4. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to peer reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
  5. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
  6. 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.
  7. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

 

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the Digital Law journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines and on the requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).

 

  1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer-reviewed journal of research and practice, 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 of the Digital Law Journal: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher.

1.2. The 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. The publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. The Digital Law Journal is aimed to reflect the current level of scientific knowledge in the subject spheres, and recognize the responsibility to comply with this objective particularly in relation to the ethical guidelines that we have adopted here.

 

  1. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The editor-in-chief of the Digital Law Journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The editor may be guided by the editorial policies of the Digital Law Journal and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – The editor 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. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of the Digital Law Journal  must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and 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.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – The editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor 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.

 

  1. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Qualification and promptness – Any selected peer reviewer 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 the Digital Law Journal  and excuse themselves 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. Peer reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Peer 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 peer 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 peer 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. Peer 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.

 

  1. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors 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 a manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Manuscripts in form of reviews and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorials 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 manuscript, 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. The 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, the author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of manuscripts (e.g., translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned should agree to the secondary publication, which should reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

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 Manuscript

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.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. 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.

4.8.2. 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.

4.9. 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 the Digital Law 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 manuscript.

 

  1. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the Digital Law Journal  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 the editors of the Digital Law Journal 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. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. The publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

 

Indexation

Manuscripts in the Digital Law Journal are indexed by several systems:

  • Science Index– a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project has been under development by “Electronic Scientific Library” (elibrary.ru) since 2005.

 

Founder

  • Maxim I. Inozemtsev

 

Author fees

Publication in the Digital Law Journal is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any manuscript processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any manuscript 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.

Peer 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

The Digital Law Journal uses 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

Prior to acceptance and publication in the Digital Law Journal, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in the Digital Law Journal, it is suggested that the link to the manuscript on journal's website is used when the manuscript is shared on personal or public websites.

 

CrossMark

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, the Digital Law Journal is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to the possible changes.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

 

Data sharing policy

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of research data

This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in manuscripts published in the Digital Law Journal. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data include any recorded factual materials that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.

Definition of exceptions

The data that are not subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. More information about finding research data repositories is available at https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the Digital Law Journal welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. The Editorial Board of the Digital Law Journal does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Digital Law Journal does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.  

Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the editor-in-chief of the Digital Law Journal.