Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

RES PUBLICA: International Review of Public Law and Political Studies applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of all manuscripts submitted for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the journal's aims and scope, submission requirements, academic standards, and referencing requirements.

Before a manuscript proceeds to the external peer-review stage, authors are required to ensure that the manuscript is supported by a minimum of 30 relevant and up-to-date references. At least 80% of the references should come from peer-reviewed scholarly journals, preferably published in reputable national or international journals.

The journal strongly encourages authors to use references that have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) whenever a DOI is available. References should be directly relevant to the research topic, appropriately cited in the manuscript, and preferably represent recent developments in the field.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum reference requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before being considered for external peer review.

At this stage, the editors also assess the manuscript's relevance to public law and political studies, originality, overall structure, academic writing, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

2. Similarity and Originality Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may undergo a similarity check using an appropriate plagiarism-detection system. The purpose of this process is to identify substantial similarities with previously published works and to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet the journal's standards of originality and academic integrity.

The similarity report is considered together with the context of the identified similarities and does not constitute the sole basis for an editorial decision.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject of the manuscript.

RES PUBLICA employs a double-blind review system, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, confidentially, and constructively.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following principal criteria:

  • originality and significance of the contribution;

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • clarity of research objectives and research questions;

  • adequacy of theoretical and conceptual foundations;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology or legal approach;

  • quality and adequacy of data, legal materials, or other sources;

  • coherence and depth of analysis;

  • clarity and consistency of arguments;

  • contribution to public law, political studies, governance, or related scholarship;

  • relevance of the findings and their theoretical or practical implications;

  • quality, relevance, and adequacy of references; and

  • compliance with the journal's minimum reference requirements.

5. Reference Quality Requirements

RES PUBLICA considers the quality and relevance of references an essential component of scholarly writing. Authors are required to use references that are directly relevant to the research and sufficiently support the arguments, theoretical framework, methodology, and discussion presented in the manuscript.

The following minimum requirements apply:

  1. The manuscript should contain at least 30 references.

  2. At least 80% of the references should be sourced from peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

  3. Authors are strongly encouraged to prioritize reputable national and international journals.

  4. References with a DOI should be included with their DOI whenever available.

  5. References should be relevant to the topic and research objectives of the manuscript.

  6. Authors should prioritize recent and current scholarly literature while retaining important seminal or foundational works when academically necessary.

  7. References must be cited consistently in the manuscript and accurately listed in the reference list.

Meeting the minimum number of references does not by itself guarantee acceptance. The editorial team and reviewers will also assess the quality, relevance, currency, diversity, and appropriate use of the cited literature.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial team's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision;

  • Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before publication;

  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may be subject to further review; or

  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or editorial standards or is outside the journal's scope.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, and the journal's editorial policies.

7. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial team. Authors should also provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments and indicate how the requested revisions have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when considered necessary.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers are also expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the review when their relationship with the authors, institution, or subject matter could affect the objectivity of their evaluation.

9. Final Publication

Manuscripts that have successfully completed the review and revision process proceed to the final editorial and production stages. Before publication, accepted manuscripts may undergo language editing, formatting, proofreading, and metadata verification.

The editorial team reserves the right to make necessary editorial adjustments while maintaining the substance and academic integrity of the authors' work.