The peer review procedure adopted by Civitas et Lex complies with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and international best practices in scholarly publishing.

1. Review model

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in a way that prevents identification of their identity.

Reviewers and authors must not have any conflicts of interest, in particular arising from:

• employment relationships,
• direct recent scientific collaboration,
• personal relationships or any other circumstances that may influence the objectivity of the review.

Members of the editorial board do not act as reviewers.

2. Selection of reviewers

After an initial formal and substantive assessment of the manuscript, the editorial team appoints at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewer selection is based on the following principles:

• subject-matter expertise,
• independence,
• absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Reviewer qualifications

Reviewers may hold a doctoral degree, a postdoctoral (habilitation) degree, or a professorial title, or possess equivalent academic achievements and documented research experience ensuring a high level of expert competence in the relevant field.

Reviewer selection is based primarily on academic expertise, regardless of formal academic titles.

4. Decision-making process

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Possible review outcomes include:

• acceptance without revisions,
• acceptance with revisions,
• rejection.

In cases of conflicting reviews (one positive and one negative), a third independent reviewer is appointed.

A manuscript is rejected if it receives two negative reviews.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, who takes into account:

• the reviewers’ reports,
• the scientific quality of the manuscript,
• the journal’s scope and profile,
• ethical standards.

The Editor-in-Chief may:

• accept the manuscript,
• reject the manuscript despite positive reviews (in particular for ethical or substantive reasons),
• request additional evaluation.

5. Review timelines

The standard review period is up to 4 weeks.

This deadline may be extended in justified cases.

6. Confidentiality and review ethics

All materials submitted for review are strictly confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• disclose manuscript content to third parties,
• use the manuscript prior to publication,
• use information contained in the manuscript for their own research or any other academic benefit.

7. Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers are required to:

• provide a fair and objective scholarly assessment,
• identify potential similarities with existing literature,
• report suspected breaches of publication ethics (including plagiarism, data manipulation, or lack of originality),
• decline to review in case of a conflict of interest.

8. Review format

The review must be provided in written form and include one of the following recommendations:

• accept without revisions,
• accept after revisions,
• reject.

The evaluation criteria are specified in the standard review form, which is available in 

• English Form.

9. Communication of results

The editorial office communicates the decision to the author together with anonymized reviewers’ reports and justification.

The author has the right to:

• respond to reviewers’ comments,
• revise the manuscript,
• submit a revised version of the manuscript.

10. Appeal procedure

The author has the right to appeal the editorial decision.

The appeal must include a substantive justification.

The editorial office may:

• uphold the decision,
• send the manuscript for re-evaluation,
• appoint an additional reviewer.

The editorial decision after the appeal procedure is final.

11. Author proofreading

After acceptance and editorial processing, the author receives the manuscript for proofreading.

At this stage, only technical, linguistic, and typographical corrections are permitted.

12. Reviewer confidentiality

The identities of reviewers of individual articles remain confidential.

Once a year, the journal publishes a list of collaborating reviewers without linking them to specific manuscripts.

13. Compliance with best practices

The review procedure complies with:

• the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),
• international peer review standards,
• best practices in scholarly publishing.