HSE University Journal of International Law adheres to high standards of publication ethics, in particular, the recommendations of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We expect our authors and reviewers to adhere to the following publication ethics policy. If you have any doubts about compliance with ethical standards when publishing materials in this Journal, please contact the Executive Editor of the Journal at eamartynova@hse.ru.

1. Duties and responsibilities of authors

Authorship of the publication

1.1. When submitting a manuscript, the author must ensure that all persons who made a significant contribution to the formation of the study concept and/or collected and analyzed data for the work and/or participated in writing or reviewing the text are listed as co-authors.

1.2. All persons listed as co-authors must agree that they will all be considered authors and that no person who would reasonably be considered an author will be excluded from the list of co-authors.

1.3. When submitting a manuscript, the author must make sure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with its submission for publication in this Journal.

Originality of the work. Inadmissibility of plagiarism

1.4. The Journal adheres to the definition of plagiarism adopted by the HSE University: plagiarism is the use in written work of someone else’s text or other copyrighted work, published in paper or electronic form, without full reference (without indicating the name of the author and the source of borrowing) or with references, but so that the volume and nature of borrowings call into question the independence of the work performed or one of its main sections.

1.5. Plagiarism in any form violates the principles of academic ethics and is unacceptable. When submitting a manuscript, the author is obliged to make sure that the submitted work meets the requirements of originality and does not contain unfair borrowing of text or statements of other authors or paraphrasing the work of another author without appropriate bibliographic reference. For any borrowed graphic materials, permission to use them must be obtained from the copyright holder.

1.6. As a rule, submitting for publication a manuscript containing fragments of a previously published article by the same author, as well as other forms of self-plagiarism, is unacceptable. The exception is cases when the author has significantly revised previously published material - in this case, when sending the manuscript for consideration, it is necessary to add an appropriate comment, and the text of the manuscript must contain a bibliographic reference to the author’s previously published works.

1.7. HSE JIL recognizes the potential of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to enhance the writing and research process. However, the use of AI tools to generate text, data, or figures that substitute for the author’s own analysis, or to create images or figures, is not allowed. Authors must disclose any use of AI or AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts. This disclosure should include the name and version of the tool used, a description of how it was utilized, and the reasons for its use.

1.8. Submitting one manuscript to several journals simultaneously is considered unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest

1.9. A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial, non-financial, professional, contractual or personal circumstances influence the content and results of the study. A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the author's work has been compromised. The author is required to disclose information about conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript for publication; after editorial review, this information may be published in the article.

1.10. If the author receives funding for the preparation of the manuscript, the author is required to disclose the source of funding.

2. Peer review process. Duties and responsibilities of reviewers

Prior to submission for review, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the editorial team for compliance with the profile and requirements of HSE JIL. At this stage, the manuscript may be returned to the author/s with comments on the reasons why it cannot be submitted for review (desk rejection). The editors reserve the right to return a manuscript that is not formatted in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

When the submitted manuscript meets the minimal acceptance criteria, the Editor-in-Chief appoints at least two reviewers from among the members of the Editorial Board or external reviewers. All reviewers are leading experts in international law. The Journal adheres to the principles of ‘double-blind’ reviewing: the names of reviewers and authors are not disclosed during the review process, authors and reviewers communicate with the Executive Editor. We do not, under any circumstances, allow authors to suggest specific reviewers.

The review period in HSE JIL is usually not more than two weeks and can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

Conflict of interest

2.1. The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing in case of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a situation in which any circumstances affect or may affect the ability of the reviewer to evaluate the submitted manuscript solely on the basis of its content and scientific value. The reviewer should inform the Editor-in-Chief about a possible conflict of interest as early as possible.

Objectivity

2.2. The reviewer is obliged to evaluate the submitted manuscript objectively and unbiasedly. Reviewers' comments must be supported by reasons. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

2.3. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following main criteria: relevance of the presented research from the standpoint of modern trends in the development of this area (or areas) of international legal knowledge; originality and novelty of the scientific research; knowledge by the author of scientific literature and modern research on relevant issues; clarity of presentation of the material: structure of the presentation, logic of argumentation, consistency of conclusions with the given data. 

Confidentiality

2.4. A manuscript submitted for review is a confidential document and may not be shared with third parties or discussed with anyone other than those involved in the review process. Taking into account existing standards and publication ethics, the editors expect that the manuscript will not be used by the reviewer for his own purposes, and any information about it will be kept confidential until the material is published. After completion of the review or in case of refusal to review, the reviewer has no right to share the text of the manuscript or its fragments with other persons or use the materials for personal research, even if the work is subject to publication.

2.5. The Journal encourages mentoring of new reviewers. However, it is extremely important to obtain permission from the Editor-in-Chief before sharing details of any review with a colleague or asking someone else to complete a review on behalf of the reviewer assigned by the editors.

2.6. The reviewer questionnaire sent with the manuscript provides the possibility to send comments to the Editor-in-Chief that will not be available to the author—this can be useful for highlighting issues or directing comments that the reviewer feels would be inappropriate to present directly in the author section of the questionnaire. The editors guarantee the confidentiality of such comments.

Performance

2.7. The main task of the review stage is to help the editors make a decision about publishing the manuscript, as well as to help the author improve the quality of the work. The reviewer's comments should be sufficiently detailed and constructive, and the statements contained in them should be supported by specific excerpts from the work submitted for review.

2.8. Based on the results of reviewing, the reviewer gives one of four conclusions:
(1) to accept the paper for publication;
(2) to accept the paper after revision by the author;
(3) to invite the author to substantially revise the manuscript before the final decision is reached;
(4) to reject the manuscript outright.

2.9. If the reviewer recommends publishing the material after revision by the author or under the condition of substantial revision, the comments of the reviewer are passed to the author/s. The authors have the right to reasonably reject the reviewer's comments. As a rule, the term for revision of the text by the author/s based on the results of reviewing is not more than two weeks but can be extended at the author's request.

2.10. Compliance with the publication schedule of issues of the Journal depends on the receipt of timely and high-quality reviews by the editors. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the agreed time frame, he or she must inform the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible. This will allow the editors to take additional measures if necessary and report delays to the author of the work.

Doubts about the author's integrity

2.11. If during the review the reviewer has any doubts about the integrity of the author’s behavior (for example, there are signs of plagiarism, fabrication of research results, falsification of authorship or significant similarity between the reviewed text and other publications known to the reviewer), the reviewer must inform the Editor-in-Chief about this as soon as possible.

3. Duties and responsibilities of the editorial board

Publication decision

3.1. The editorial team of the Journal makes a decision to publish a manuscript solely on the basis of its scientific value and regardless of the race, gender, religious or political views of the author.

3.2. In case of two conflicting reviewers' conclusions, the Editor-in-Chief resolves the conflict at her discretion or appoints a third reviewer, including a meta-reviewer (a reviewer to whom not only the manuscript text but also anonymised texts of reviews are sent).

3.3. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication. At the same time, positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the Editorial Board. When making a decision on publication, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with reviewers and members of the Editorial Board, however, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the decision on publication.

3.4. Publication of an article in the Journal is free for authors. No fees are charged at any stage of the publication process, including submission, reviewing, editing and publishing. any negotiations on a possible payment for publication between the editors and authors are unacceptable.

Confidentiality

3.5. The editors do not unnecessarily disclose information about the manuscript accepted for consideration, with the exception of persons directly involved in the process of preparing the manuscript for publication: reviewers, consultants and editorial staff who carry out scientific and literary editing of the manuscript, proofreading, as well as layout of articles and preparation of the layout of the issue.

3.6. Members of the editorial team do not have the right to use data from materials submitted for consideration for publication in the Journal in their personal research without the prior written consent of the author.

3.7. Members of the editorial team are required to inform the Editor-in-Chief about a possible conflict of interest due to cooperation, competition or other interaction with the author or organizations associated with the research. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief, such editorial employee may be completely or partially removed from the process of preparing the manuscript for publication.