Ius Novum

Article Processing Charge (APC)

The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.

Peer review process

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. The reviewers are scientists with significant scientific achievements in a 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. and authors shall not know their identity (double blind review).
8. Reviewers and authors must not have a conflict of interest; they are required to make an appropriate statement.
9. Reviewers appointed to review an article must not reveal the fact.
10. The review should be made in writing, according to a special template (review form). Reviewers evaluate the publication with points, according to the questions contained in the review form, and also provide their own descriptive comments. The review synthesizes the key merits and shortcomings of the text, a final evaluation and an unequivocal recommendation to publish or reject the article. The unequivocal recommendation includes the reviewer's decision in the following categories: accept without corrections; accept after making corrections; requires thorough improvement and re-review; reject.
11. Reviewers shall submit their reviews in two formats: electronic and a hard copy with a handwritten signature. Such review is archived for two years.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Open Access Statement

This is an open access journal that provides free, immediate, and unrestricted online access to all its published content for readers around the world.

Copyrights

Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Copyright is retained by the publisher - Lazarski University.