Peer Review

The peer-review process

The Journal strictly adheres to the rules of the double-blind review process. With anonymity as the most important principle, this process consists of three stages:

  1. General editorial review.
  2. Double-blind peer-review with the help of experts.
  3. Final decision on publishing by the editor.

 

During general editorial review, one of the editors examines the submitted manuscript based on general requirements, namely academic suitability, morality, and uniqueness.

If the editor so decides, the manuscript is sent to the peer reviewers. Neither the peer reviewers nor the authors shall be acquainted with each other to ensure personal and institutional independence. The editor further sends the generally reviewed manuscript to two academically qualified experts from the relevant branch/field of law, who then provide their professional opinions about the manuscript. The editor mediates all interactions between the author(s) and peer reviewers.

During the process of reviewing, the editor communicates with the author(s) via e-mail. The author is informed about the result of the process of peer-reviewing by the editor who conducted the general editorial review. Correspondence related to peer-review and peer reviewers’ reviews are archived by the Editor-in-chief. Peer reviews are not published.

 

The editor shall answer the following questions about the general editorial review:

  1. Does the manuscript ensure anonymity? Yes/No
  2. Does the study meet the detailed formal requirements of the Journal? Yes/No
  3. Did the author attach the declaration that he/she has not recommended his/her study for publication in other journals and that his/her study has not been published yet? Yes/No
  4. Did the PhD student attach the reference to his/her scientific supervisor? Yes/No
  5. Does the manuscript comply with the above-mentioned general requirements of academic suitability, morality, and uniqueness? Yes/No

 

The peer reviewers (experts) shall answer the following questions within the framework of the double-blind review process:

  1. Is the study of high quality? Yes/No
  2. Are the relevant national and international sources of law and case law adequately processed in relation to the subject of the study? Yes/No (peer reviewers may suggest further sources of law and case law to the author)
  3. Is the relevant national and international scientific literature adequately processed in relation to the subject of the study? Yes/No (peer reviewers may suggest further scientific literature to the author)
  4. Does the study evaluate the analysed sources of law and case law, and does it contain de lege ferenda proposals? (Does the study contain their own scientific results?) Yes/No
  5. Is the study’s reference system relevant and correct? Yes/No
  6. Does the peer reviewer recommend the study for publication in the Journal? Yes/No/With changes (for example, with the above-mentioned additions related to sources of law, case law or scientific literature)

 

Note: The editorial team specifies its inability to pay remunerations for peer review, but it does issue a certificate of participation in the peer-review on request.

 

The author or editor might seek the help of a linguistic proofreader if the author’s native language is not English. A linguistic proofreader shall answer the following question:

  1. Is the study correct concerning the translation? Yes/No

 

Where necessary, the linguistic proofreader may correct only some and not large parts of the manuscript. If the linguistic proofreader does not pass the manuscript for publication even in the third attempt, it results in its final rejection.

After receiving the professional opinions of peer reviewers, the editor makes the decision regarding the publishing of the manuscript. The editor exercises discretionary competence regarding this only in the case of one supporting and one rejecting opinion. Two supporting opinions results in the manuscript being published. However, the editor shall decide in which issue of the Journal the manuscript will be published. Two rejecting opinions implies rejection. In case one or both the opinions recommend(s) the manuscript for publication with changes, the editor sets a fair time limit for making the necessary changes. If the author addresses these required changes, the modified manuscript is sent to the same peer reviewers again for their professional opinions.

 

Obligations of peer reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviewers help the editorial team in decision-making if required, anonymously supporting the author in raising the scientific level of the scholarly work during the process of collegial revision (double-blind review).

Efficiency: In case the selected peer reviewer thinks that:

  1. she/he cannot provide scientifically and professionally well-founded opinions because she/he does not feel qualified, or
  2. she/he cannot evaluate the research presented in the manuscript for other reasons, or
  3. she/he is aware of the inability to prepare her/his opinions effectively and within the given time,

she/he is obliged to notify the editor and waive participation in the peer-review.

Confidentiality: All received manuscripts are considered confidential. Peer reviewers shall refrain from using information obtained during the peer-review process to their own or another’s advantage or to the disadvantage or discredit of others. They shall not involve anyone else in the review without first obtaining permission from the Journal.

Objectivity: The evaluation shall be carried out objectively. Personally criticising the author is considered inappropriate. The peer reviewers’s views must be conveyed in a straightforward and argumentative manner.

Reference to sources: Peer reviewers shall know the relevant published works not cited by the author(s). Any statement that contains an observation, thought or argument from a work published earlier must be accompanied by an appropriate reference. Furthermore, the peer reviewer should draw the editor’s attention to any substantive similarity or overlap between the examined manuscript and other material previously published and known by him/her. Peer reviewers should refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to their work merely to increase citation counts or enhance the visibility of their work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: The privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation shall be handled confidentially and not be used for personal promotion.

Suspected misconduct: In case the peer reviewer has concerns regarding misconduct either during the research or writing and submitting of the manuscript, or the peer reviewer notices substantial similarities between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or published article, she/he shall directly get in touch with the editor. The peer reviewer shall not attempt to investigate on her/his own.

 

Decisions on publishing

The editor decides which submitted manuscript will be published in the Journal. Decisions can be guided by the guidelines set by the Journal’s editorial board and shall be limited by the current legislation on libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may seek help from other editors or peer reviewers to aid in her/his decisions. The editor is permitted to run a computer software to filter out plagiarism.

The Editor-in-chief holds the right to veto the editor’s decision.