Rules for reviewing materials submitted for publication to the Romanian Journal of Private Law

Chapter 1
General rules

Art. 1
The Rules for reviewing the materials submitted for publication to the Romanian Journal of Private Law, hereinafter referred to as "the Review Rules", provide for the procedure of analysis and review of materials submitted by interested authors for publication in the Romanian Journal of Private Law, hereinafter referred to as "the RPRL" or "the Journal".

Chapter 2
General conditions and registration of materials

Art. 2
Material submitted for publication must comply with the Journal's Publication Principles set out in the pages and on the Journal's website.

Art. 3
If the material does not comply with the Publication Principles, the author will be given the opportunity to recast it, indicating the deficiencies found.

Art. 4
Material shall be submitted for publication in electronic format only to:
• The email address specially created and made public – periodice@universuljuridic.ro or to the Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager or the Editor-in-Chief
• Coordinator of the magazine issue;

Chapter 3
Review procedure

Art. 5
Within a maximum of 15 days after receipt of the material:
• The Editor submits it to the Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager, Editor-in-Chief, or Theme Issue Coordinator for approval;
• The Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager or the Editor-in-Chief shall proceed with the classification of the material in one of the sections of the Journal or in the theme of one of the issues of the Journal of the current year and shall propose that it be sent to the person in charge of that section in the Editorial Board or to the Theme Issue Coordinator for analysis;
• The editorial board or the themec issue coordinator shall approve, with any necessary comments or additions, and/or reject the publication of the article in the pages of the Journal;

Art. 6
• For the purposes of Article 5, the following shall be checked:
1. the material falls within one of the sections of the Journal, i.e. the current year's Journal themes;
2. the identification data of the author are indicated;
3. the material under review follows the specific structure of an article, in accordance with the principles of publication of the Journal, the rules of citation, the existence of the bibliographic list and the use of abbreviations
4. the material is transmitted in Romanian or in an international language;
5. the material has no more than 3 authors;
6. the material has no defect in any way that would prevent publication in accordance with the principles of publication of the Journal;
(2) The person carrying out the verification may make any other assessments he considers appropriate.

Art. 7
(1) If the material submitted for publication does not comply with the conditions verified in accordance with Article 6, the author shall be notified of the deficiencies found at the e-mail address indicated for correspondence, with a request to remedy them within a maximum of 15 days of notification.
(2) If the deficiencies are not remedied within the prescribed time limit, the review procedure shall be continued or, where appropriate, the material shall be rejected from publication. It may also be decided to reject the material from publication if the defects found are of substance, such as when the citation rules have not been systematically respected.
(3) Continuation of the review procedure is only possible if the defect found is not substantial and can be remedied at a later stage.
(4) If it has been decided to reject the article from publication, the author will be notified by the Publisher within 5 working days of the decision.

Art. 8
If the material fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 6 or if the deficiencies found have been remedied in accordance with Article 7, it is proposed that the review procedure be continued. This will be decided by the Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager or the Editor-in-Chief or the thematic issue coordinator.

Art. 9
(1) The review process still involves a “double-blind” evaluation, which means that the identity of the author is hidden from the reviewers and the author does not know the identities of the reviewers.
(2) Manuscripts are reviewed by two reviewers who are independent experts in the relevant field (from an institution other than the author's).
(3) Reviewers make a scientific evaluation and recommendation to the editors, taking into account the originality and importance of the work, its contribution to legal scholarship, together with the quality of the writing, including the existence of objective scientific reasoning and coherent argumentation.
(4) A text lacking originality must be flagged as such by the reviewers with an indication of references to works that have already dealt with that subject and reached the same conclusion by the same means.
(5) Reviewers will also highlight poor reasoning, lack of references or unsubstantiated conclusions with specific indications.
(6) Manuscripts will not be rejected on the sole ground that the reviewers disagree with the author's conclusion if all other criteria are met.
(7) Reviewers should highlight the strengths or weaknesses of the manuscript.
(8) In addition to the items referred to in paragraph (3) to (7), the reviewers may make any comments they deem appropriate on the material under review.
(8) The persons designated for the review will check the material submitted for publication within 15 days of its communication.
(10) The Editor shall consider the manuscript and reviewers' comments before making a final decision: either accept, accept with revision or reject the manuscript.

Art. 10
(1) In the event that comments are made by the reviewers and it is decided to continue the review process, they will be sent to the author at the e-mail address indicated with the mention to comply within 15 days of communication.
(2) If the author complies with the obligations laid down for him, it may be decided, as appropriate, to accept the revised/completed material, to resume the review procedure or to continue the review procedure.
(3) If the author does not comply with the obligations laid down for him, it is decided to reject the material from publication or to continue the review procedure.
(4) The Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager or the Editor-in-Chief or the theme issue coordinator may also decide to reject the material from publication if the defects found are of substance, as is the case if it is found that the author has not complied with copyright rules.
(5) The decision to admit/reject the material from publication shall be notified to the author within 15 days.

Art. 11
(1) The person designated for the review shall check the material submitted for publication within 15 days of its communication.
(2) At this stage of the analysis, the originality of the material and its contribution to legal scholarship shall be checked in particular.
(3) In addition to the items referred to in paragraph (2) the designated person may make any comments he or she deems appropriate on the material under examination.

Art. 12
(1) Comments will be sent to the author at the e-mail address indicated, with a request to comply within 15 days of communication.
(3) If the author complies with the obligations laid down for him, it may be decided, as appropriate, to resume the examination procedure or to continue the review procedure.
(4) If the author does not comply with the obligations laid down for him, it is decided to reject the material from publication or to continue the review procedure.
(5) The Journal Manager, Journal Deputy Manager or the Editor-in-Chief or the theme issue Coordinator may also decide to reject the material from publication if the defects found are of substance, as is the case if it is found that the author has not complied with copyright rules.
(6) The decision to reject the material from publication shall be notified to the author within 15 days.

Art. 13
The management of the Review retains the discretion to decide on published material, but will not deviate from the conclusions resulting from the review process except in exceptional circumstances and only to ensure that the objectives of the Review are met.

Art. 14
Throughout the review process the name and identification of the author will not be made known to any person involved in the process, except members of the Journal's Management, and the name and identification of the reviewers will not be made known to the authors.