Reviewing Procedure

Reviewing Procedure of the Articles Sent to “Ius et Administratio” 

1. The texts sent to the Editorial Board will be subject to a preliminary assessment by the Thematic Editors.

2. The reviewing procedure is based on the principle of “a double blind review”, according to which the Reviewer and the Author of the text do not know their identity.

3. Two external Reviewers from outside the entity publishing the Journal are appointed in order to assess each article (in case of the texts in English at least one of them will come from a foreign institution).

4. External Reviewers:

a) are not members of the Editorial Board,

b) are employees competent in the given field and have at least a doctoral degree and the appropriate scientific achievements,

c) have a good reputation,

d) are not employed in the same institution from which the Authors come.

5. In  other  situations,  the  Reviewer  must  sign a declaration on occurring of no conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest is deemed to take place between the Reviewer and the Author if there is:

a) a direct personal relation (affinity, legal ties, conflicts),

b) a subordinate professional relation,

c) a direct scientific cooperation during the last two years prior to the preparation of the reviews.

6. The Editorial Board provides the Reviewer with the publication text, abstract and key words and asks him to take, within a specified period, a decision on accepting or rejecting it. During the process of reviewing the Reviewers are obliged to keep confidentiality concerning their opinions on the reviewed article and are not allowed to use the gained knowledge prior to its publication.

7. The Editorial Board of the Journal “Ius et Administratio” provides the Reviewer with a review form. The review must end with a clear conclusion as to the allowance of the article to be published or as to its rejection.

8. The Reviewer submits the prepared reviews in the electronic form to the Editorial Board’s e-mail address, as well as in the paper version with the handwritten signature.

9. The Reviewer’s comments are forwarded to the Author of the reviewed text, who is obliged to take into account the Reviewers’ recommendations to correct the text. If the Author of the text does not agree with the conclusions of the Reviewer, he has a right to present his opinion to the Editorial Board. The decision to publish the text is taken by the Chief Editor, on the basis of the opinion of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Council.

10. The list of Reviewers is put on the Journal’s website once a year.