For authors

“Journal of Eastern European Law” is included in the List of scientific professional editions of Ukraine in accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine No.455dated 15.04.2014. 

Journal of Eastern European Lawis included in databases Index Copernicus International (Poland) December 2014 and HeinOnline since February 2015.

Certificate_Copernicus

логотип

Articles presented to the editor to the last day of the current month will be published in the journal next month. The journal is published on the 25th of each month.

To publish an article in the scientific journal “Journal of Eastern European Law” please send by e-mail easternlaw.ua@gmail.com the following materials:

1) electronic version of the article *;

2) in the absence of a scientific degree of the author – a scanned contribution review of doctor or candidate of sciences;

3) a scanned copy of the receipt of the registration fee for the publication **;

4) The photo of the author (optional).

An example of the name of the file: Petrov_article, Petrov_review, Petrov_receipt, Petrov_photo.

Articles are published in author’s edition. The editors of scientific publications “Journal of Eastern European Law” are not responsible for spelling, stylistic or other mistakes made by the author of the publication.

The cost of publication is 375 UAH. Recipient: PJSC CB “Privat”, account number: 29244825509100, MFO: 305299, OKPO: 14360570 Payment: refill Sokolan Tetyana S. No. 5168 7572 1085 4172.

The editorial office of scientific publication “Journal of Eastern European Law” address: 57/3, Velyka Vasylkivska Str, Kyiv, 03150, Higher education institution “University of Modern Knowledge”

Telephone: +38 (093) 527 17 96 Tetyana Sokolan.

We accept for publication in the journal in the form of articles the results of original research, practical and educational research that have not previously been published and are written in Ukrainian, Russian or English, and meet the following requirements:

1) formulation of the issue in general and its connection with important scientific and practical tasks (“Issue“);

2) analysis of recent research and publications in which a solution of the problem supported by the author is started (“Analysis of recent research and publications“);

3) the allocation of unallocated parts of the general problem, to which the article is devoted (“Unsolved problems“);

4) a statement of the purposes of article (problem) (“Purpose“);

5) a statement of the basic research material with full justification of scientific results (“The main body“);

6) The findings of this study and the prospects for further research in this area (“Conclusion“).

These items are in the manuscript in bold.

- UDC;

- First name, last name and patronymic of the author, academic degree, academic rank, position;

- Title of the article;

- Abstract in Ukrainian, Russian, English;

- Abstract in English must contain at least 1800 signs, abstract in Russian and Ukrainian language – not less than 30 words. The editorial office can do the translation of extended abstracts in English for an additional fee (100 UAH);

- Keywords (5-7);

- The main text of the article;

- A list of sources used, designed in accordance with state standards.

The article should be typed in text editor Microsoft Word. All margins – 20 mm. Font – Times New Roman 14, with 1.5 line spacing. Be sure to add in a separate file – an electronic photo of the author a 4 × 5,5 with the extension * jpg. quality 600 x 600 dpi.

The references are quoted directly in the text.

Please quote the serial number of the used source in brackets, and the particular page after a comma.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will not be accepted for publication.

Ethical norms

Responsibilities of the Authors (based on the recommendations of Elsevier, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and International Standards for Authors)

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research should submit an accurate report on the performed work as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Basic data must be reliably presented in the article. The article should contain enough information and citations to allow others to duplicate work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable. Reviews and professional publications of articles should be accurate and objective, and the editorial “thought” should be the same.

Access to data storage

Authors may be requested input data due to the article for editorial review and they must be ready to provide public access to such data (in accordance with the ALPSP Statement on Data and Databases (ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if possible, and in any case, be ready to store such data within a reasonable time after their publication.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and if they used the work and/or the words of other authors, it was properly quoted or taken in quotation marks.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from the presentation of someone else’s work as their own to copying or paraphrasing of the essential parts of someone else’s work (without indication of authorship) to appropriation of the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

Repeated, duplicate or simultaneous publications

The author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. Sending of one and the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable.

In general, the author should not submit for consideration previously published works in another journal. Sometimes, the publication of certain types of work (for example, clinical guidelines and translations) in more than one journal is justified, if certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of journals must agree to a secondary publication, which should reflect the same data or translation of the original document. The main reference should be in the secondary publication.

Confirmation of sources

The author always must validate works of other authors as required. The authors should publish researches that were critical in determining the nature of the published work. Information received in private capacity, for example, in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or provided without the written permission of the source. Information obtained through confidential services, such as manuscript reviews or grant applications, should not be used without the written permission of the author of the work.

Authorship to Research

Authorship should belong to someone who has made a significant contribution to the concept, intention, execution or interpretation of published research. All those, who have made a significant contribution, should be listed as co-authors. Those, who participated in certain essential aspects of a research project, should be recognized or presented as participants.

The author should ensure that all identified collaborators are listed in the work and that they are acquainted and approved the final version of the document and agreed with its submission for publication.

Risk factors and research involving humans or animals

If the research is connected with chemicals, procedures and equipment, which are characterized by any unusual risk factors, the author should clearly identify them in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of the subject of animals or humans, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures have been performed in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and that they have been approved by the relevant institutional establishments. The authors should include a statement in the manuscript that the consent was obtained on the basis of complete information for the experimental study of human beings. Rights to a person’s privacy must always be respected.

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest

A conflict of interests can exist when the author or institution of the author has financial or other relationships with other people or organizations that may have an inappropriate influence on the author’s work. The conflict can be real or potential, and full disclosure of information is the safest option. All provided information should disclose all communications that may be interpreted as representing a conflict of interests. The journal may use such information as a basis for editorial decisions and may publish such information, if they are considered important to readers in the assessment of the manuscript. The journal may decide not to publish on the basis of the declared conflict. At the end of the text, under the subtitle “Information Disclosure Statement”, all authors must provide information on any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including any financial, personal or other relationship with other people or organizations within 3 (three) years from the beginning of the submitted work that could negatively affect (distort) their work.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include work, counseling, and share ownership, fees, paid expert opinions, patent applications / registrations, grants or other funding sources. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

All sources of financial support for a project should be disclosed. This statement (with the heading “The role of the source of funding”) should be made in a separate section of the text and placed before Bibliography. The authors should describe the role of a sponsor (s) of the study, if any, in the research plan; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in report writing; and in taking a decision to submit a document for publication.

Fundamental mistakes in published works

When an author reveals a material error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author should immediately notify editor of the journal or publisher and co-operate with editor in order to correct the document. If editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a material error, the author must immediately correct the document or submit evidence of correctness of the original article to the editorial office.

Responsibilities of editors (based on the recommendations of Elsevier (http://www.elsevier.com/editors/home)and Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf)

Publication decision

The decision of the editors to accept or reject a document for publication based on the importance, originality and clarity of the article, and the validity of the study and its relevance to the subject matter of the journal.

Editors decide on which articles to publish, depending on the quality and relevance for the journal and without interference on the part of owner/publisher of the journal.

The decision on publication is taken in the light of copyright law. The editor’s decision is based on his/her best judgment and the views of other editors or reviewers.

Fair game

Articles are given an unbiased assessment, taking into account their scientific and practical content. All articles are assessed irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political beliefs of the author.

Confidentiality

The editorial board does not disclose information that has become known in the process of study of the submitted articles and other materials, except for the author, reviewer (reviewers).

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interests

The editorial board should avoid conflict of interests, that is cases when the author (or institution of the author), reviewer or editor has such financial or personal relations that adequately impact on objectivity, impartiality of the work of the editorial council, scientific perception of the submitted article.

In the event of appearance of a conflict of interests of a member of the editorial board, he may to withdraw from study and evaluation of the manuscript for cause, requesting the transfer of such a manuscript to another member of the editorial board.

Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief have the right to request information on a conflict of interests from all participants of the process before or after the publication of the article and make appropriate refutations, modifications or disclosures.

Participation and collaboration in research

If the author submits a complaint about his publication in the journal, the editorial board applies appropriate adequate measures. Such measures have the nature of negotiations of the editorial board with the author. The facts of violation of ethical norms are considered by the editorial council irrespective of the publication date.

If the arguments, complaints were reasonable, the editorial board is obliged to make appropriate refutations, changes or disclosures.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers (based on the recommendations of Elsevier (http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/home),

Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf) and

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelin)

Contribution to editorial decision

An independent and impartial conclusion of the quality of the submitted article (publication) promotes the adoption of an objective decision by the editorial council to place such a publication in the journal. Scientists, who have volunteered to perform the role of a reviewer, must read and evaluate the article (publication) in good faith.

Timeliness

The editorial board will provide information about the deadlines for the request for review. Notify them during the day or two that you have received the request. They will appreciate the fact that you have timely made them aware of whether you are able to complete the review or not. Failure to review the document does not entail any consequences.

If the reviewer understands that the review will take longer than usual, please contact the editor to discuss this issue. The editor may ask you to recommend another reviewer, or may be willing to wait a bit longer (for example, if the document is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general recommendation, if you know that you will not be able to complete the review within the specified time frame, you must refuse to process the document.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for consideration should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others, except cases when it is agreed with the editor. Unpublished materials, disclosed in the submitted manuscript, should not be used in own research of a reviewer without the written consent of the author. Information, which is not subjected to disclosure or ideas obtained during an independent assessment must be confidential and not be used for personal gain.

Principles of objectivity

Reviews of submitted publications should be impartial, objective and based solely on a comprehensive assessment of the content and results of the research to be carried out. The critique of the author’s personality is unacceptable. The review should be qualified, understood and reasoned.

Source confirmation

Reviewers are obliged to identify relevant published works in the reviewed material that were not quoted by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have been used previously in any publication should be documented as quotes. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor-in-chief’s attention to substantial or partial resemblance to any other work with which the reviewer is directly acquainted.

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interests

Reviewers do not accept manuscripts, which can provoke conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative or other relationships or communications with any of the authors, companies or institutions that are related to the work. In this case, the reviewer should contact the editor and refuse to review the particular document.

Reviewing procedure:

All articles entering the editorial office of the Journal of Eastern European Law are closed (double-blind) reviews and are checked for plagiarism.

After the evaluation of the scientific article, the reviewer gives a conclusion:

- an article is recommended for publication;

- an article is recommended for publication after its completion by the author, taking into account the comments made;

- the article is not recommended for publication.

Editorial board has the right to review, edit, reduce and reject the article. In the case of neglect of mentioned requirements regarding manuscripts composition, editorial board reserves the right to skip them. Editorial staff not always shares a position of authors. Republication of articles is possible only with the consent of editorial board.

Example of the manuscript

УДК [351.74:621.397.4] (477)

Петров Петро Павлович –

кандидат юридичних наук, доцент,

 доцент кафедри адміністративного права

Київського національного університету

 імені Тараса Шевченка

ВІДЕОЗАПИС ЯК ДЖЕРЕЛО ДОКАЗІВ: НОТАТКИ ДО НАУКОВОЇ ДИСКУСІЇ

У статті розглянуто положення процесуального законодавства щодо поводження з таким доказом, як відеозапис, зроблено висновок про неможливість віднесення відеозапису до речових доказів і документів, а також запропоновано надати відеозапису статусу окремого джерела доказів.

Ключові слова: доказ, джерела доказів, відеозапис, судове провадження, позасудове провадження, процесуальне законодавство.

В статье рассмотрены положения процессуального законодательства каса- тельно обращения с таким доказательством, как видеозапись, сделан вывод о невозможности отнесения видеозаписи к вещественным доказательствам и документам, а также предложено предоставить видеозаписи статус отдельного источника доказательства.

Ключевые слова: доказательство, источник доказательств, видеозапись, судебное производство, внесудебное производство, процессуальное законодательство.

Petrov P.P. Videotape as a Source of Evidence: Notes to a Scholarly Dispute

The article deals with provisions of procedural legislation on giving definition to evidence and a videotape as one of its types. A videotape can refer both to physical evidence and documents pursuant to the provisions of procedural codes. But the author disagrees with these provisions. He mentions that procedural code identifies the document as a material object which is specially created to keep information and can be used as a proof of facts or circumstances during criminal proceeding. But the legislator provided such definition of the document without analyzing a semantic meaning of this word. A document is interpreted in the definition dictionary as 1) an official paper that proves some legal fact, certificates something, serves as an evidence of something. It is everything what confirms something. Commercial paper. 2) a certificate which tests the person; 3) a written essay, commendation etc. which proves something important or historical; 4) a paper which is created to be filled in. In this regard the author draws a conclusion that a document is a paper and a videotape can not be addressed as a paper. Physical evidence is items of the physical world which contain information on circumstances important for the case. Some procedural codes say that physical evidence includes magnetic, electronic and other data storage devices which contain audiovisual information on circumstances having the meaning for the case. In such a way a videotape can be the type of physical evidence. But a videotape does not correspond to the definition of a physical videotape which is contained in procedural codes. Magnetic, electronic and other data storage devices are items containing information which can be helpful to establish important circumstances. This information can be obtained from the content of these items through special equipment. This process differs from the process of examining physical or written evidence when their material from is examined. In this regard the author makes a conclusion that the legislator referring a videotape to physical evidence or documents does not want to take into account transformations in the world including progress in science and technology. In turn it tries to explain new facts with old definitions. The author does not accept this position and proposes to provide a videotape with the status of an independent type of evidence. The author proves that this step will assist judges to have a more serious attitude to this type of evidence and take it into account during the trial. In this regard the author offers to amend procedural legislation in force with a provision that factual circumstances can be established by audio- and videotapes and allocate in separate section procedure for handling with this evidence. The author analyzes procedure of using videotape in a non-judicial process. She considers provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences and makes a conclusion that this law does not regulate handling with videotapes during procedures on administrative offences which are conducted by the representatives of public administration agencies. Thus propositions on amending procedural judicial legislation can be used in a non-judicial process. The author also proposes to amend the draft law on Administrative Procedural Code of Ukraine with provisions concerning videotape.

Keywords: evidence, source of evidence, videotape, judicial procedure, non-judicial procedure, procedural legislation.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS