The "double-blind" approach is applied in the peer-review procedure. Each submitted manuscript is subject to a peer-review by at least two reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board or by one of its members. Each reviewer must be an expert in the particular field of law addressed by the submitted manuscript. Manuscripts are not reviewed by persons who have institutional or other connections with the author.
The reviewers shall always maintain high professional standards and an objective and independent approach to the submitted manuscripts. Analysis of strong and weak site of submitted manuscript is necessary for proper peer-review procedure. The reviewers shall review the submitted manuscript especially from the point of view of potential science enrichment. The reviewers also review:
1. formal site of submitted manuscript, i.e. clarity of text with regard to wording and compliance of text fragmentation in accordance with the principle one thought = one paragraph
2. scheme of submitted manuscript
3. terminology, i.e. correctness, precision and uniformity of using terminology
4. subject-matter (f. e. definition of the issues and introduction of the actual status of positive law in relation to the defined issues, contribution of the author in solving of defined issues, dealing of the author with different legal opinions, etc.)
5. compliance with required form of citations from other authors
The reviewers also provide suggestions and comments to submitted manuscript from point of view of peer-review criteria supported by concrete arguments.
The reviewer's report is the result of peer-review procedure. Based on reviewer's report it is recommended to the Editorial Board to either publish, or nor publish the manuscript or to publish the manuscript after adoption of reviewer's comments. In such a case if the comments have been incorporated by author, the manuscript is submitted for subsequent control to the reviewer. Unless the author has rejected to incorporate comments from reviewer, the manuscript shall not be recommended for publishing.
During the peer-review procedure, the reviewers shall apply the confidentiality, non-discrimination approach and, they always shall inform the executive editor about the possibly existence of conflict of interest. These obligations of the reviewers are closer defined in Publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Outline of peer-review procedure and feedback to Authors
1. Acknowledgment of manuscript submission (e-mail)
2. Selection of appropriate reviewers: 1-5 working days
3. Information on start of review (e-mail)
4. Reviewer's report: 15 days
5. Information on receipt of testimonials (e-mail)
6. Evaluation of reviews by the editors: 5 working days
7. If a revision report is required:
8. Reporting the result of the peer-review procedure back to the Author (e-mail)
Copyright © 2000 - 2021 Ústav štátu a práva SAV. All rights reserved.Design by Mgr. Peter Krákorník - AKRONET