|Digital Object Identifier|
1. This code defines the terms and conditions for the “Law and World” publisher, editorial board, reviewer and author.
2. According to the moral accountability, the aim of the code is to establish professional dignity of the “Law and World”, respect its activities and establish trust towards the scientific publications in the society.
3. The code is based on the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality and transparency.
4. This code is being developed and refined according to the contemporary requirements and the integration and execution of the best practice regarding ethics, is being proceeded.
5. The “Law and World” fully shares the principles and practice of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Editorial board must perform its activities honestly and with due diligence, which creates trust in users and represents the core value of the Journal.
2. Editorial board decides the issue of publication based on the scientific and intellectual value of the article and not according to race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship and political view.
3. When needed, editorial board provides structured and reasoned documentation regarding the content and scientific value of the article.
4. Editorial board must not use information or quoting of the submitted article, until it is published or unless the author gives such permission.
5. Editorial board must ensure strict confidentiality of the article and communication, which takes place between the board and the author. Only the decision on publication can be publicly available.
6. Editorial board sends the commentaries and remarks of the reviewer to the author in an encrypted manner (without identifying the reviewer).
7. Authors’ telephone numbers and email addresses will be used only for the purposes of the Journal and not in other, incompatible way.
8. If the main editor is the author/co-author, he/she cannot be involved in the revision process of the article. In such case, his responsibility is handled to other member, chosen by the editorial board.
9. If there is (possible) conflict of interests between the member of the editorial board and the author, the final decision is made by the editorial board.
1. When revising the article, reviewer clearly substantiates his/her opinion and is free from any influence or pressure. He/she evaluates every important detail and is not affected by subjective biases or influences of other persons’ interests.
2. Evaluation must be based on the principle of impartiality, any form of personal critique against the author is inadmissible. A position upon the article must be expressed only in a reasoned manner.
3. A revision must resemble a creative dialogue with the author, where both sides have equal rights.
4. A view provided in the article may be controversial as well, however this does not exclude the right of a reviewer to present his/her idea, if this idea is backed by relevant argumentation and based on the main episodes and core parts of the existing text.
5. Reviewer is obliged to accord to the norms of ethics and be good-natured even if a revision is negative.
6. Emotional language is inadmissible during the evaluation, for ex. ‘super-ordinary’, ‘unique’, ‘special’, ‘terrible’, ‘senseless’, ‘outrageous’, etc..
7. Reviewer must avoid demonstration of his/her personality and must be oriented on showing the positive and negative sides of the text.
8. While using the information obtained during the evaluation of the article, reviewer must ensure confidentiality, must not use information from unpublished article in any form, for personal purposes or otherwise, which is in conflict with the author’s interests or damages the Journal’s aims and purposes.
9. Reviewer does not provide the article to other reviewers without the consent of the chief editor.
10. The identity of reviewer is hidden even if a revision is negative or recommendatory.
11. Reviewer must point out every important source, that is not used by the author, he/she also must make observations on the references made and on those which are not quoted properly by the author must elaborate on if there is any form of substantial intersection with the same issue, published in other scholars’ articles.
12. Reviewer refuses to make a revision, if:
13. If reviewer finds any inconsistency during the revision process, such as: plagiarism, data falsification, shadow authorship, double publishing and etc. he/she must inform the publisher.
14. If reviewer cannot revise the article in the specified period suggested by the publisher or a research topic is beyond his/her competence and considers himself/herself as an unqualified, he/she must inform the editorial board of the “Law and Journal” as soon as possible.
1. Author must convince the editorial board, that his article is a result of the original research.
2. When using other authors’ ideas and quotations, an article must be structured according to the mandatory referencing style of the “Law and World”.
3. Author must not handle already published article to other journal, or article published in other periodical, must not be submitted to the “Law and World” editorial board.
4. Any fact of plagiarism will be considered as unethical and unconscientious behavior, which infringes person’s dignity and confronts the principles of academic behavior, established in a scientific society.
5. If plagiarism is revealed before the publication, the author will be informed about this and the editorial board will demand explanation within the period of five days.
6. In order to address the mistake, after an explanation, editorial board is entitled to give a reasonable period to the author, up to five working days.
7. If the author refuses to explain, or explanation does not refute a fact of plagiarism, an article will not be considered for publication.
8. In this case, editorial board reserves the right to completely ban from publication further submitted articles in the “Law and World” from this author, or prohibits to publish up to three years, based on the seriousness of infringement.
9. After publishing, in case of any revelation of plagiarism, the issue is being studied by the editorial board – informing the author about plagiarism and requiring to provide an explanation within five days.
10. If the author refuses to explain or his/her explanation does not refute a fact of plagiarism, editorial board discusses on the issue of the author’s responsibility.
11. Editorial board bans the author, whose plagiarism is verified to publish an article in the “Law and World” up to three years, or completely, based on the seriousness of an infringement.
12. Researcher’s lack of experience or explanation on careless mistake, as well as self-plagiarism and plagiarism based on negligence can be considered a basis for relatively light liability.
13. Any decision must be communicated to the author of plagiarism.
14. Author is entitled to require a written response about the taken measures towards him/her from the chief editor.
1. Law Institute of the European University ensures performance of the norms of ethics of the “Law and World” according to this code.
2. Publisher must convince the author/reader that decisions of the editorial board of the “Law and World” are not affected by any outer factors.
3. Publisher ensures communication between the Journal and the author.
4. Publisher offers the best possible option for agreement in case of compliant.
5. Publisher supports and develops the best practice of the “Law and World” and is oriented on improving inaccuracies and implementing novelties.
|Editor in Chief|