Art. 1
Need for anonymous review
1. Each article considered for publication in the journal is subject to anonymous double-blind review procedure as governed by these guidelines. The double-blind review is conducted in compliance with the principles of transparency, correctness, impartiality, confidentiality, independence of the reviewers, freedom of scientific research, and lack of any conflict of interest upon all those involved in the procedure.
Art. 2
Start of the anonymous review
1. Following a preliminary positive assessment of the submission’s compliance with the minimum criteria of scientific adequacy and its relevance to the thematic areas of the Review, the reviewing procedure governed by Article 1 shall begin under the supervision of the Responsible Director or the editor(s) of a monographic issue.
Art. 3
Rules governing the review
1. The paper under review is anonymized by omitting the authors’ name as well as any information from which it would be possible to infer the authors’ identity.
2. The anonymised paper is sent to one of the reviewers previously identified as scholars with extensive knowledge of the paper’s subject matter. Together with the submission, reviewers shall also receive Erdal’s reviewer form.
3. In no case, can any editor or member of the editorial board act as reviewer. Members of the Scientific Committee may sometimes be reviewers.
4. Editors and reviewers are bound by confidentiality as to their role in the review process.
5. Reviewers shall return editors the completed form within fifteen days from receiving it.
6. In their evaluation, reviewers take into account:
a. paper’s completeness, linearity, clarity, relevance and consistency in dealing with the issue;
b. scope and depth of the investigated profiles;
c. authors’ critical contribution and methodological and argumentative rigor;
d. contributions’ originality and innovative insights;
e. contributions’ international relevance;
f. contributions’ impact and usefulness in the scholarship debate for the advancement of knowledge and scholarly progress;
g. completeness and relevance of bibliographic, normative and caselaw references.
7. The review process shall conclude in one of four outcomes:
a. decision to publish the paper as is;
b. decision to publish the paper contingent on suggested revisions;
c. a request to rewrite and submit the paper again;
d. rejection or decision not to publish the paper.
8. Reviewers’ evaluations shall always respect authors’ freedom of scholarly research. Evaluators’ suggestions to include specific citations shall be deemed mere suggestions and in no case will they be construed as mandatory directions.
9. The Review shall keep a confidential copy of all evaluation forms.
10. In case any reviewer finds it impossible to return the completed form, or fails to comply with the deadline set forth in paragraph 5 of this article, the editor shall proceed to replace them, repeating the steps set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.
Art. 4
Outcomes of the review
1. Following a decision to publish or a decision to publish contingent on changes per the procedure set forth in article 3, the evaluation’s positive outcome and/or any request for revision is forwarded to the author(s). These communications shall not disclose the reviewer’ identity.
2. Following a request to rewrite and resubmit, or a rejection per the procedure set forth in Article 3, the Responsible Director or the monographic issue’s editor(s) shall proceed to identify another reviewer for a second evaluation according to the procedure set forth in Article 3.
3. If the second reviewer also concludes their evaluation with either a request to rewrite and re-submit, or a rejection, the contribution shall not be published. The evaluations’ results shall be communicated to the authors without disclosing the reviewers’ names.
4. If the second reviewer delivers a positive evaluation, a third reviewer shall be chosen per the procedure set forth in Article 3. If the third reviewer, like the second one, approves the paper, it shall be deemed publishable, possibly contingent on revisions.
5. Upon start of the procedure per paragraphs 3 and 4, the evaluations’ results are forwarded to the author(s), in order to inform them of the outcome of the evaluation, as well as of any requests for revision. These communications shall not disclose the reviewer’ identity.
6. Following an acceptance contingent to revisions, authors will proceed with the revisions and send back the paper. The editor in charge shall verify that the final version taken into account and complies with the requested revisions.
7. In Erdal, the first footnote of articles selected for publication following the blind peer-review process shall read “Article subjected to blind peer review.”
Art. 5
Specific circumstances
1. Papers written by an editor of the Review shall be handled by another editor who ensures reviewer’s freedom and anonymity.
2. In cases of authors of proven authority and outstanding reputation, editors may choose to exempt their submissions from review.