Code of Ethics

General Information

  1. The provided code defines the ethical standards and conduct guidelines for the publisher, editorial board, reviewers, and authors of the journal 'Law and the World'.
  2. According to moral accountability, the code aims to establish professional dignity of the Law and World, respect its activities and establish trust towards scientific publications in 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 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 practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Obligations of the Editorial Board

  1. The 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. The editorial board decides the issue of publication based on the scientific and intellectual value of the article and not according to the author’s race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship and political views.
  3. When needed, the editorial board provides structured and reasoned documentation regarding the content and scientific value of the article.
  4. The editorial board must not use information or quotes from 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. The 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 journal and not in other incompatible ways.
  8. If the chief editor is the author/co-author, he/she cannot be involved in the revision process of the article. In such cases, his responsibility is handled by another member chosen by the editorial board.
  9. If there is a possible conflict of interest between the member of the editorial board and the author, the editorial board makes the final decision.

Obligations of the Reviewer

  1. When revising the article, the 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 impartiality; any 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. The 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. The 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, the reviewer must ensure confidentiality and must not use information from an 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. The reviewer does not provide the article to other reviewers without the consent of the chief editor.
  10. The identity of the reviewer is hidden even if a revision is negative or recommendatory.
  11. The 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. The reviewer refuses to revise, if:
  • he/she can guess the identity of the author according to the phrases and ideas used in the text;
  • submitted article is very close to the research topic of the reviewer, which makes him/her subjective during the evaluation process;
  • there is some other condition for assuming that there is a conflict of interests (must be specified).
  1. If the reviewer finds any inconsistency during the revision process, such as plagiarism, data falsification, shadow authorship, double publishing, etc., he/she must inform the publisher.
  2. If the 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 unqualified, he/she must inform the editorial board of the Law and Journal as soon as possible.

Author’s Obligations

  1. The author must convince the editorial board that his article results from the original research.
  2. In the paper, the author may criticize the work of another scholar. However, personal criticism is not allowed.
  3. The author cannot use hate speech, provoking ethnic and religious strife, or obscene and offensive phrases. The article submitted for publication by the author cannot be discriminatory.
  4. Proper recognition of the research and publications of others should always be ensured.
  5. When using other authors’ ideas and quotations, an article must be structured according to the mandatory referencing style of the Law and World.
  6. In addition to exact citations (in the footnotes), the author should also mention the works that influenced the nature and direction of the work presented (in the bibliography).
  7. Any fact of plagiarism will be considered unethical and unconscientious behaviour, which infringes a person’s dignity and confronts the principles of academic behaviour established in a scientific society.
  8. If plagiarism is revealed before the publication, the author will be informed about this, and the editorial board will demand an explanation within five days.
  9. After an explanation, the editorial board is entitled to give the author a reasonable period, up to five working days to address the mistake.
  10. If the author refuses to explain or the explanation does not refute a fact of plagiarism, an article will not be considered for publication.
  11. In this case, the editorial board reserves the right to completely ban from publication further submitted articles in the Law and World from this author or prohibit publishing for up to three years, based on the seriousness of the infringement.
  12. After publishing, in case of any revelation of plagiarism, the editorial board studies the issue – informing the author about plagiarism and requiring an explanation within five days.
  13. If the author refuses to explain or his/her explanation does not refute a fact of plagiarism, the editorial board discusses the issue of the author’s responsibility.
  14. The editorial board bans the author, whose plagiarism is verified, from publishing an article in the Law and World for up to three years or completely, based on the seriousness of an infringement. In such a case, the board reserve the right to remove the published article from the electronic version of the journal.
  15. The researcher’s lack of experience or explanation for careless mistakes, self-plagiarism, and plagiarism based on negligence can be considered a basis for relatively light liability.
  16. Any decision must be communicated to the author of plagiarism.
  17. The author is entitled to require a written response from the chief editor about the measures taken towards him/her.

Publisher’s Obligations

  1. The Law Institute of the European University ensures execution of the ethical norms of the Law and World according to this code.
  2. The publisher must convince the author/reader that decisions of the editorial board of the Law and World are not affected by any external factors.
  3. The publisher ensures communication between the journal and the author.
  4. The publisher offers the best possible option for agreement in case of compliant.
  5. The publisher supports and develops the best practice of the Law and World and is oriented on improving inaccuracies and implementing novelties.

Other Provisions

  1. If a violation is identified in a paper published in the journal, any individual has the right to apply to the chief editor of the journal and request an investigation into the issue along with an appropriate response. The application must include detailed information about the violation (author of the paper, title, type of violation, justification).
  2. The chief editor must review all such applications within a reasonable timeframe with the editorial board and provide the applicant with a reasoned response. The author(s) will be informed of the application and allowed to provide their explanations.
  3. After examining the explanations provided by the author/authors, if the editorial board determines that the published work violates the journal’s rules, a collegial decision will be made.
  4.  In the event of the public dissemination of information regarding the violation (via social media or other sources), the editorial office is authorized to respond to the application in the same manner as it would with a written application.