PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The review process is based on the following principles:
- The Editorial Committee of the Review of European and Comparative Law journal conducts preliminary evaluation of submitted works. Criteria include compliance with the journal's profile, originality, scientific relevance, and language standards (verification by a native speaker). The Editorial Committee verifies that editorial requirements and guidelines for bibliography and footnotes are met before submitting a text for review. All texts submitted for publication are also checked for originality using an anti-plagiarism program.
- Individual works are reviewed internally, performed by the Editors of the journal, and externally, performed by two independent reviewers recommended by the Committee. The Editorial Board ensures that External Reviewers are appointed from outside the academic unit where the Author of the publication is affiliated. Reviewers are not members of the Editorial Board.
- During the review procedure, the Committee guarantees that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other's identity (double-blind review process). Reviews are posted electronically on the platform and sent anonymously to the Authors by a person designated by the Editorial Board.
- The reviewer can choose the following recommendations regarding the reviewed manuscript: accept the text; required revisions; required revisions and re-review; reject the submitted text. In debatable cases (e.g., incompatible or contradictory reviews), admission to print is decided by the Editorial Board, which may also appoint an additional Reviewer. Only those manuscripts that have received two positive reviews are accepted for publication. The names of the Reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed. The journal publishes on its website once a year a list of all reviewers who cooperate with the Editorial Board.
- In the case of conditional reviews, the Editor may admit the manuscript for publication if the Author makes changes to the text indicated by the Reviewer. The author of the text is obliged to respond substantively to all comments and conclusions made in the review within a maximum of 7 days.
OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS
- Review process steps:
– Receiving an invitation to review
– Accepting the invitation
– Evaluation of the manuscript
– Completion of the review sheet
– Submitting the review
- Reviews help the Editorial Board make editorial decisions, and can also help the Authors improve the manuscript.
- Before accepting the review preparation, the reviewer should consider whether the topic and subject matter of the text are consistent with his or her competence or research interests. The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review if he/she considers that he/she does not have sufficient knowledge to prepare a reliable and substantive opinion.
- The standard time for preparation of a review of one manuscript is 4 weeks or another agreed individually with the Editorial Board. In the event that it is not possible to complete the review within the established time limit, the Reviewer is obliged to notify the Board and set a new time limit with it for completion of the review or resign from its preparation. The Reviewer should notify the Board of the circumstances immediately after their occurrence.
- All texts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed or discussed with other persons except those authorized by the Editor.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. The reviewer should avoid personal criticism of the Author and clearly express his/her views with appropriate substantive arguments.
- Reviewers should identify published papers, addressing the corresponding topic of the article, that have not been cited by the authors. Any significant similarities or overlaps between the analyzed manuscript and other published works should be reported to the Editorial Board.
- The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript taking into account: 1) the substantive side of the text; 2) the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovation; 3) the number and accuracy of the literature and sources selection, especially the scope of the search, taking into account representative journals included in databases with international coverage; 4) the compliance of the abstract, keywords and bibliography with the requirements of the journal; 5) the level of scientific workshop; 6) the coherence and clarity of the text; 7) the language
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review have to be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not agree to evaluate manuscripts for which they have a suspected conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is understood as family relations between the Author of the text and the Reviewer (kinship, marriage); scientific relations (scientific collaboration, maintaining close scientific contacts, suggesting the possibility of transferring information between individuals regarding scientific work); professional relations (professional or professional subordination).
