The review process and adherence to editorial ethics are organised in line with the principles declared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All scholarly articles submitted to the editorial team undergo a review process as part of the selection stage for publication. The goal of the review is an objective evaluation of the article’s content to determine its compliance with the journal’s requirements, analyse its strengths and weaknesses, and provide specific recommendations for improvement.
Articles submitted to the C.P. Journal and meeting formal criteria are evaluated for thematic relevance and assigned to appropriate reviewers. Articles relevant to the journal’s focus are subjected to anonymous peer review, adhering to a “double-blind” policy where both the authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities. This ensures impartiality.
The review process involves both members of the editorial board and external experts, selected based on their contributions to the development of legal scholarship and their publications in the relevant subject areas.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria:
- the adequacy of the article’s relevance and significance;
- the justification of the problem’s connection to pressing scientific or practical challenges;
- the comprehensiveness of the analysis of recent studies and publications on the topic;
- the alignment of the article’s objectives with the problem under consideration;
- the substantiation of the results obtained;
- the scientific conclusions and their correspondence to the article’s objectives;
- prospects for further research in the given direction;
- terminological clarity and consistency;
- the author’s familiarity with academic literature, including international contributions on the topic;
- the clarity and quality of the author’s language and style, including the need for further scientific or literary editing..
The review must include specific conclusions regarding the article’s suitability for publication, highlighting any significant shortcomings. The final recommendation can be one of the following:
- “Recommended for publication.”
- “Recommended for publication with revisions addressing the identified shortcomings.”
- “Not recommended for publication.”
Reviewers assess the practical value, scientific significance, and theoretical-methodological level of the article. They also evaluate its adherence to ethical principles in scientific publications and provide recommendations for addressing potential breaches.
Reviewers are informed that submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and are treated as confidential. Copying or using the content of the article before publication is strictly prohibited.
Editorial Board Decisions Following Review:
- Approve the material for publication as submitted.
- Return the material to the author for revisions as recommended by reviewers.
- Reject the publication (if both reviewers recommend rejection).
If reviewers raise concerns about the article, it is returned to the author for revision. The revised version must then undergo another round of review.
Upon receiving positive reviews, the editorial board decides on the article’s suitability for publication. The editorial team reserves the right to edit or shorten submitted articles.
Submission Deadlines for Revised Articles:
Authors must return revised articles to the editorial team within 14 days of receiving feedback. Delayed submissions will result in adjusted dates for the article’s acceptance and final decision.
Responsibilities and Duties
Editor-in-Chief Responsibilities
The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board members are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of submitted materials, except when disclosing information to reviewers, potential reviewers, or editorial consultants. The Editor-in-Chief is accountable for decisions regarding article publication based on their relevance and importance to fundamental and applied research.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Each manuscript is treated as a confidential document. Discussions of the manuscript with third parties are prohibited unless authorised by the editors. Reviews must be objective, with clear and well-substantiated conclusions, free of personal criticism towards the author.
Author Responsibilities
Authors must guarantee the originality of their work. When using information from other sources, proper citations must be provided. If errors are identified in a published article, authors must notify the editorial board and assist in rectifying them. If notified of errors by others, authors are obliged to either issue a correction or provide evidence supporting the accuracy of their work. Plagiarism and misappropriation of others’ research are strictly prohibited.
