General Rules

Articles submitted for publication are subject to an independent and anonymous double-blind peer-review process.
As a result of the review process, authors may be expected to modify their articles according to reviewers’ recommendations.
After the peer-review, reviewers’ ratings, recommendations and comments will be shared with the respective authors.
Authors should modify their articles, according to the recommendations, within 7 days.
The decision to publish, reject or return an article for modifications belongs to the editors.
Authors of published articles do not receive royalty fees.
Peer-review and publication costs are supported by the editors.

 

Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the editors for their recognized merit in the area to which the article belongs.

Reviewers should notify the editors in case of suspicion of plagiarism or any conflicts of interest.

 

Evaluation Criteria

Submitted articles will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Contribution/relevance of the subject;
2. Analysis of the current literature;
3. Analysis of the current jurisprudential support;
4. Use of current theories or concepts in the field;
5. Development of current theories or concepts in the field;
6. Quality and logical consistency of the critical analysis;
7. Quality and textual organization of the article;
8. Clarity and logical consistency of the conclusions.

 

Article score ranges

1. Accepted: between 60 points - 80 points.
2. Accepted after minor modifications: 48 points - 59 points.
3. Accepted after major reformulation: 32 points - 47 points.
4. Rejected: under 32 points.

 

 (Full rules of the peer-review process are available here)