Editorial Protocol

Rigorous double-blind jurisprudential appraisal

Submissions undergo independent evaluation by academic specialists. Evaluation is conducted solely on theoretical grounding, jurisdictional rigor, and original statutory analysis without editorial compromise.

14 Days

Initial desk appraisal

Double-Blind

Anonymized review

2 Referees

Independent specialists

Evaluation Workflow

The four stages of scholarly review

01
02
03
04

Initial Desk Assessment

Independent Peer Appraisal

Author Revision Window

Final Editorial Board Decision

The editorial office verifies anonymous manuscript formatting, scope alignment, and strict adherence to anti-plagiarism protocols before external dispatch.

Two anonymous academic specialists evaluate the theoretical architecture, comparative depth, and doctrinal accuracy of the submitted jurisprudence.

Authors receive detailed referee reports with a structured timeline to refine statutory arguments, citation metadata, and doctrinal claims.

The Editor-in-Chief and advisory board review referee recommendations to issue a final determination on publication and volume scheduling.

Publication Ethics

We maintain absolute adherence to Committee on Publication Ethics standards, conflict disclosure mandates, and academic integrity policies.

Every manuscript published since 2014 undergoes rigorous verification to preserve canonical citation trust across European jurisdictions.

Review Ethics Code

Formal review inquiries and editorial recourse

Scholars seeking clarification on referee reports may submit formal documentation to the secretariat.