EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR REVIEWED TEXTS

§1

1. The reviewer evaluates the reviewed text in terms of its compliance with the Journal’s profile.
2. The reviewer states whether the topical scope of the reviewed text falls within the scope of the legal science discipline. In the event of the text going beyond this discipline, the reviewer determines whether the results of academic research presented there refer to or are the result of research conducted from the perspective of legal sciences.
3. The reviewer should determine whether the reviewed text is an original scientific work that is of high cognitive value for science or legal practice.

§2

1. When evaluating a reviewed scientific article, the reviewer should take the following into account: a). compliance of the text with the profile of the periodical; b). substantive side of the text, and the compliance of the article with the IMRAD structure [Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion]; c). proper selection and application of research methods d). number and proper selection of sources and literature, bibliographic items on the SCOPUS and Web of Science lists in particular; e). compliance of the abstract, keywords and bibliography with editorial requirements; f). consistency and clarity of the text; g). linguistic correctness.
2. The review primarily determines whether:

• the title of the reviewed text is consistent with the research problems presented;
• the author properly selected and applied research methods;
• the author properly conducted the research process, and whether the obtained results constitute elements of new knowledge;
• the introduction and conclusion contain the most important elements for a scientific publication, in particular whether the research thesis and purpose of the research were formulated in the introduction, if the author properly verified the thesis and drew conclusions, and whether they answered the questions posed in the introduction.

§3

If the subject of the review is a gloss, the reviewer’s task is to determine whether the commentary to the selected judicial ruling is of a scientific nature, and if the reviewed text concerns a ruling that relates to controversial, ground-breaking issues, and is important for shaping jurisdiction practice. The reviewer assesses whether the author of the gloss correctly characterized and analyzed the legal issue raised in the commented ruling, and if they properly formulated the conclusion.

§4

If the subject of the review is a review article, it should be determined whether it concerns a publication significant for science or practice, and if the author referred to the methodological precision and substantive side of the reviewed item.

 §5

If the subject of the review is a report from a scientific conference, the reviewer should determine whether it defines the purpose of the conference, presents the theses or the main content of the papers submitted, and if it indicates the importance of the conference for science or practice.