ERDAL’S REGULATION ON THE BLIND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Necessity of the anonymous review procedure
1. Each article intended for publication in the review is subjected to the anonymous double-blind review procedure governed by these regulations, in compliance with the principles of transparency, correctness, impartiality, confidentiality, independence of the reviewers with respect to the governing bodies of the Review, respect for freedom of scientific research, and in general conditions of absence of conflicts of interest for all people involved in the procedure.
Activation of the anonymous review procedure
1. The reviewing procedure required by Article 1 is conducted by any of the
editors, following a preliminary positive assessment of the compliance with the
minimum criteria of scientific adequacy of the paper and its relevance to the
thematic areas of the Review.
2. The editor who takes the initiative is required to activate the review procedure if he has verified that there is space available for publication in one of the subsequent scheduled issues.
3. A contribution may not be subject to several reviewing procedures on the initiative of several publishers at the same time.
Conducting the anonymous review procedure
1. The paper subject to review is made anonymous through the omission of the
author’s name and the concealment of any information that, even indirectly, can
lead back to the identity of the author.
2. The anonymised paper is sent by the editor, who takes care of the procedure, to a reviewer who has been identified to be among the scholars with proven competence in the thematic area of the paper, together with the reviewer form published in Annex A, which is an integral part of this regulation.
3. In no case can one of the editors or a member of the editorial board be called to be a reviewer; the members of the scientific committee may occasionally be called to be a reviewer.
4. The editor and the reviewer are bound by secrecy about the designation.
5. The reviewer shall return the completed form to the editor within fourteen days of receiving it.
6. The reviewer evaluates:
a. the completeness, linearity, clarity, relevance and consistency in dealing with the issue;
b. the degree of depth in the profiles investigated;
c. the author’s critical contribution and its methodological and argumentative rigor;
d. the originality and innovativeness of the contribution;
e. the international relevance of the contribution;
f. the impact and usefulness of the contribution for the advancement of knowledge and the scientific progress;
g. the completeness and relevance of bibliographic, normative and jurisprudential references;
h. the compliance with Erdal’s editorial rules.
7. The reviewer may give rise to one of the following outcomes:
a. acceptance subject to minor revisions;
b. acceptance subject to significant reviews;
c. request for rewriting and resending the contribution;
d. rejection, or evaluation of non-publication.
8. The reviewer ’s evaluation always takes place in full compliance with the author’s freedom of scientific research, so the outcome of the review cannot contain the request for citation of specific works; if such indications are present in the form they must be considered in any case as non-binding advice.
9. The Review keeps a confidential copy of all the evaluation forms, together with the names of the reviewers to whom they are associated.
10. In case of declared impossibility of the reviewer to return the completed form, or failure to respect the deadline provided in the paragraph 5 of this article, the editor will replace the reviewer, repeating the procedure provided in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article