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:

  • professor Zbigniew Czarnik, Ph.D., D.Sc., WSPIA University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • profesor dr hab. Katarzyna Dudka, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Maria Curie- Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland
  • profesor Jolanta Jakubowska-Hara, Ph.D., D.Sc., Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
  • profesor Jerzy Jaskiernia, Ph.D., D.Sc.,Faculty of Law, Administration, and Management, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland
  • professor Katarzyna Kaczmarczyk-Kłak, Ph.D., D.Sc., WSPIA University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • profesor Dariusz Kala, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Nicolai Copernici University, Toruń, Poland
  • profesor Tomasz Kalisz, Ph.D., D.Sc., Wrocław University, Poland
  • professor Czesław Kłak, Ph.D., D.Sc., WSPIA University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • professor Violetta Konarska-Wrzosek, Ph.D., D.Sc.,Faculty of Law and Administration, Nicolai Copernici University, Toruń, Poland
  • profesor Zbigniew Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Opole University, Poland
  • profesor Maria Jeż-Ludwichowska, Ph.D., D.Sc.,Faculty of Law and Administration, Nicolai Copernici University, Toruń, Poland
  • profesor Mirosława Melezini, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Białystok University, Poland
  • professor Marek Mozgawa, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland
  • professor Hanna Paluszkiewicz, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Zielona Góra University, Poland
  • profesor Mateusz Pilich, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Warsaw University, Poland
  • professor Maciej Rogalski, Ph.D., D.Sc., Łazarski University, Warsaw, Poland
  • professor Jerzy Skorupka, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Wrocław University, Poland
  • profesor Jacek Sobczak, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law, SWPS University of Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland
  • professor Sławomir Steinborn, Ph.D., D.Sc., Gdańsk University, Poland
  • professor Krzysztof Ślebzak, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland
  • profesor Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek, Ph.D., D.Sc., The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
  • profesor Sławomir Żółtek, Ph.D., D.Sc., Faculty of Law and Administration, Warsaw University, Poland

Foreign reviewers:

  • prof. Rodrigo Ochoa Figueroa - attorney, Michoacana San Nicolas de Hidalgo University, Mexico
  • prof. Alembert Vera Rivera - Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil, Ecuador
  • Katarzyna Krzysztyniak - attorney, Czech Republic
  • dr Miguel Bustos Rubio – Salamanca University, Spain

Standards for reviewers

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

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.

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review proces.

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.

All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers (double blind peer review).

Objectivity standards 
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

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.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.