Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The Statement of the Studies in Law and Economics regarding Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE). In order to provide the highest ethical standards in our publishing activity we are guided by the following principles:


  1. The Journal has an EDITORIAL TEAM (editor-in-chief and co-editors), composed of members who are experts in the field of social sciences and who actively contribute to the development and good management of the Journal. Their task is to search for the best Authors and reviewers and decide which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published.
  2. The Editorial Team takes full responsibility for the content of all published articles and other texts.
  3. The Editorial Team gives unbiased consideration to all articles offered for publication, judging each paper exclusively on its academic merits, regardless of the Author’s gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or institutional affiliation.
  4. The final decision about accepting or rejecting the article for publication rests with the Editorial Team. Such a decision is based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, the study’s validity, and its relevance to the Journal’s profile. Should the Authors decide to appeal against the decision concerning the rejection of their article, the final decision also rests with the Editorial Team. After consulting with the Editorial Team members and the reviewers, the Editorial Team may change the original decision.
  5. The Authors are provided with full information about the editorial requirements and the description of the peer review process on the Journal’s website.
  6. In the event of justified suspicion of the Author’s unethical behaviour, which may take the form of copyright infringement, plagiarism, falsification of research results or other unethical actions, the Editorial Team is obliged to inform the relevant academic institutions or other appropriate body so that further investigation can be conducted. The Editorial Team should publish corrections, clarifications and apologies and retract an article if its Author(s) has committed any unethical acts.
  7. The Editorial Team and any other members of the editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial advisers.
  8. The Editorial Team should develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, updating it if necessary on the basis of reviewers’ performance, personal academic contacts, academic bibliographic database, etc. A list of the reviewers of articles published during the year is included in the last issue of the journal issued in a given year.


  1. An article can be rejected by the Editorial Team without seeking the opinion of reviewers on the basis of an internal evaluation prepared by the relevant member(s) of the Editorial Team if it does not fit the profile of the Journal, does not meet minimum quality standards, or does not comply with the editorial requirements provided in the PUBLISHING GUIDELINES, available at the Journal’s website.
  2. The articles are evaluated by two independent Reviewers who are experts in the field related to the subject of the article. The reviewers should have notable research accomplishments in the area of the article. The reviewers are not part of the Journal's Editorial Team and are not associated with the institution that the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal is affiliated with.
  3. The review process used for articles is a double-blind model, in which the identities of the Author and Reviewers are not revealed to each other (double-blind review process). A Reviewer is always obliged to sign a declaration stating that there is no conflict of interest  A conflict of interest between the Reviewer and the Author occurs if there: A) is a direct personal relationship (kinship, legal relationships, conflicts); B) exists a relationship of professional subordination; C) has been direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the preparation of the review.
  4. Reviews should be submitted in a written format and should be prepared in an objective manner and avoid personal criticism of the Author. Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and detailed feedback that allows the Author to address any issues raised in the review. The review should conclude with a clear recommendation on whether the article should be published as is, after revisions, after further research, or if it should not be accepted for publication.
  5. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the Author. A Reviewer should also call to the Editorial Team’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed article and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. When articles need significant revisions as determined by the Reviewers, the Reviewers should evaluate the revised version and make a recommendation to accept or reject it. If the appointed Reviewers have conflicting assessments of an article, it is then reviewed by a third party.
  7. If a selected Reviewer feels unqualified to provide an objective review or cannot complete the review within two months from the date of assignment, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team and withdraw from the review process.
  8. The whole content of each reviewed article is subject to the principle of confidentiality.


  1. The authorship of a submitted article should be limited only to persons who have made a significant contribution to its writing. The names of the Co-Authors and their affiliations should be listed in the heading of the article. In the case of co-authorship, the corresponding author must declare to the Editorial Team in sufficient detail the type and extent of the contribution of each individual Co-Author to the content, assumptions, methods, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The names of persons who have been engaged in the study but cannot be considered Authors should be presented in the "Acknowledgement" section. The final version of the article should be approved by all Co-Authors who shall agree to its submission for publication.
  2. Authors should include in the article proper citations of all the publications that had a significant impact on the content of the article and other sources used during the preparation of the article. Where requested, the authors should provide the data source and research methods used in the article.
  3. Authors should address the comments and suggestions of the Reviewers and have the option to challenge editorial decisions. If they disagree with the review, they should provide the Editorial Team with their explanations and relevant feedback.
  4. The sources of financial research funding for the work presented in the article should be clearly stated within the article.
  5. Authors are required to provide the Editorial Team with a statement that the article submitted for publication has not been previously published, either in printed or electronic form, nor submitted for publication in any other journals, and is not under consideration for publication in any other journals.
  6. Authors shall declare, in the Transfer of Copyright Agreement, that: A) the article is the Authors' original work; B) the article contains no material of an unlawful nature, does not in any way violate or infringe any rights of any third party, and that all necessary written permissions to reproduce other copyrighted sources have been obtained by the Authors; C) Authors transfers to the Publisher the copyright of the Article. As a result,  the Publisher shall have the exclusive and unlimited right to publish the Article throughout the World in all media for all applicable terms of copyright and sublicense the Article in any form including electronic, effective upon acceptance for publication.