For reviewers

Ius Novum publications review procedure

  1. The thematic editors shall take preliminary decisions on accepting articles for review.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief shall take the final decision to refer an article to a reviewer, having checked that an article meets all formal requirements, i.e. the author has provided all necessary information: affiliation, correspondence address, email address, telephone number, co-authors’ confirmation of cooperation and their input to the article, an abstract in the Polish language and key words.
  3. A review should take into consideration the type of work (original, experimental, reviewing, casuistic, methodological), its scientific level, whether the work matches the subject matter suggested in its title, whether it meets the requirements of a scientific publication, whether it contains essential elements of novelty, the appropriate terminology use, reliability of findings and conclusions, layout, size, cognitive value and language, and provide recommendation to accept the article after necessary changes or decline it. The review shall be developed on a special review form.
  4. Reviews shall be provided by standing reviewers and reviewers selected at random. Those shall be scientists with considerable scientific achievements in the given discipline. The list of standing reviewers is published on the quarterly website. Each issue of the quarterly publishes a list of reviewers of articles and glosses published in the issue.
  5. Two independent reviewers shall review each publication.
  6. Reviewers shall not be affiliated to the same scientific institution as authors.
  7. Reviewers and authors shall not know their identity.
  8. Reviewers appointed to review an article must not reveal the fact.
  9. A review shall be developed in writing, following a special template (the review form) and provide recommendation to accept a manuscript for publication or decline it.
  10. Reviewers shall submit their reviews in two formats: electronic and a hard copy with a handwritten signature. Such review is archived for two years.
  11. An author is provided with a reviewer’s comments and he/she is obliged to respond to them. The reviewer shall verify the text after changes introduced to it.
  12. In the event of a negative assessment of an article by a reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief, after consulting a thematic editor, shall take a final decision whether to accept the article for publication or decline it.

Regular reviewers

Polish reviewers:

  • dr hab. Zbigniew Czarnik, prof. Wyższej Szkoły Prawa i Administracji w Rzeszowie
  • prof. dr hab. Katarzyna Dudka, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Marii Curie- Skłodowskiej w Lublinie
  • dr hab. Jolanta Jakubowska-Hara, prof. Instytutu Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
  • prof. dr hab. Jerzy Jaskiernia, Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach
  • dr hab. Katarzyna Kaczmarczyk-Kłak, prof. Wyższej Szkoły Prawa i Administracji w Rzeszowie
  • dr Dariusz Kala, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu im. Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu
  • dr hab. Tomasz Kalisz, prof. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego we Wrocławiu
  • dr hab. Czesław Kłak, prof. Wyższej Szkoły Prawa i Administracji w Rzeszowie
  • prof. dr hab. Violetta Konarska-Wrzosek, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu im. Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu
  • prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Kwiatkowski, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Opolskiego
  • dr Maria Jeż-Ludwichowska, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu im. Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu
  • prof. dr hab. Mirosława Melezini, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
  • prof. dr hab. Marek Mozgawa, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie
  • prof. dr hab. Hanna Paluszkiewicz, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego
  • dr hab. Mateusz Pilich, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
  • dr hab. Maciej Rogalski, prof. Uczelni Łazarskiego w Warszawie
  • prof. dr hab. Jerzy Skorupka, Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego we Wrocławiu
  • prof. dr hab. Jacek Sobczak, Wydział Prawa Uniwersytetu SWPS w Warszawie
  • dr hab. Sławomir Steinborn, prof. Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego
  • prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Ślebzak, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • dr hab. Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek, prof. Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II
  • dr hab. Sławomir Żółtek, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego

Foreign reviewers:

  • prof. Rodrigo Ochoa Figueroa - adwokat, Katedra Prawa Administracyjnego, Uniwersytet Michoacana San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Meksyk
  • prof. Alembert Vera Rivera - Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil, Ekwador, adwokat Prezydenta Republiki Ekwador
  • dr Katarzyna Krzysztyniak - adwokat, Republika Czeska
  • dr Miguel Bustos Rubio – Wydział Prawa Uniwersytetu w Salamance

Standards for reviewers

Editorial decisions Reviewers should support the Editor-in-Chief in decision-making and authors in correcting errors.

Feedback
Reviewers who cannot review a work or know they will not be able to submit a review within an agreed time limit should inform the Editorial Board Secretary about that.

Confidentiality
All reviewed works should be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shown to or discussed with third parties who are not authorised members of the Editorial Board.

Anonymity
All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers.

Objectivity standards 
Reviews should be objective. Derogatory personal remarks are inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions and provide adequate arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.

Conflict of interests and its disclosure
Confidential information and ideas arising as a result of a review must be kept secret and cannot be used for personal benefits. Reviewers should not review works of authors if there is a conflict of interests resulting from their close relationship.

Confirmation of sources
Reviewers should enumerate publications that an author has not referred to. Whatever statements are made about observations, sources or arguments that had been previously discussed should be supported by an adequate citation. Reviewers should also inform the Editorial Board Secretary about any substantial similarities or partial overlaps noticed.