Preliminary assessment

1. Publications in the Legal History Journal (CPH)are reviewed in accordance with the general guidelines for the reviewing procedure and the publishing procedures adopted in CPH.
2. The submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editorial Board (for compliance with the profile of the journal, fulfilment of the requirements of a scientific text and other formal requirements). Manuscripts not meeting these requirements will be returned to their authors for possible improvement. The authors' nationality, ethnic origin, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious and political beliefs do not influence the assessment of the manuscript submitted.
3. In the event of a conflict of interest between the Editor and the Author, the Editor will refrain from the evaluation of the submitted manuscript and forward it to another member of the Editorial Board.

Reviewing principles

1. Reviews are anonymous and subject to a double-blind review process. The identity of reviewers of individual manuscripts is not revealed to the authors.
2. The assessment based on a review sheet includes: the nature of the text, the correctness of the formulation of the title, the topicality of the problem and the originality of the approach to the topic, the correctness of the formulation of the research problem, the method of research, the methodological assumptions of the article, the formal correctness of the text, the extent of the literature and case law used, compliance with the profile of the journal, the extent of problem solving and the author's contribution to science, the correctness of the argumentation.
3. Reviewers are required to observe the rules of publication ethics applicable to CPH.
4. Reviews should be performed objectively. Personal criticism of the author is considered inappropriate. Reviewers should express their assessments clearly, and support their comments with appropriate arguments.
5. All reviewed papers must be treated as confidential information. They may not be disclosed or discussed with anyone other than the authorised members of the Editorial Board.
6. Confidential information must be kept confidential and may not be used for purposes other than the preparation of the review.

Selection of reviewers

1. Reviewers are selected from among specialists in a given field. Due to the subject matter of the manuscripts submitted to the journal, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, a member of the Advisory Board or the Editorial Committee may be appointed as a reviewer.
2. If a selected reviewer feels unable to review the article or knows that it will not be possible to produce a review promptly, such reviewer should inform the Editors of this fact within one week of receiving a request for a review.
3. Reviews of manuscripts are made free of charge according to the rules formulated herein.

The reviewing process

1. After a positive initial assessment, the submitted manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board of the journal (with the exceptions specified in § 3.1). The reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the author of the manuscript. A conflict of interest is understood to be a relationship resulting from competition, collaboration or other relationships of a personal, financial or professional nature between the reviewer and any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should not belong to the scientific unit affiliated by the author.
2. The reviewer should inform the Editorial Board of any significant similarity or an overlap in the content of the manuscript under review with any other published work known to the reviewer, or of a suspicion of plagiarism.
3. The review must be in writing. The conclusion in the review may be of the following wording: a) admissible for publication, b) admissible for publication provided that appropriate changes are made, c) negative, with reviewer’s comments.
4. In the event of a diametrically different evaluation of a manuscript by two reviewers, the Editorial Board smay appoint a third reviewer.
5. The reviewers' comments shall be communicated to the author of the manuscript within 14 days of the receipt of the reviews.
6. The author shall enclose responses to the reviews to the revised version of the manuscript. Should the Author disagree with the Reviewer's or Editor's comments, a written justification of the objection should be provided.
7. The corrected manuscript together with the response to the reviewers’ comments must be submitted to the Editorial Board for approval.

Acceptance of the manuscript for publication

1. The condition for accepting a manuscript for publication shall be two unequivocally positive reviews, subject to point 4.
2. The condition for the publication of a corrected manuscript is an account taken in it for comments made by the reviewers.
3. The final decision about the publication of a positively revised manuscript in a given issue of the journal shall be made by the Editor in Chief.
4. The Editor in Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles, based on the reviews and the corrections made by the Author. The Editor's decision is final.

Reviewers' data

1. Reviews and the entire documentation of the reviewing process shall be kept in the archives of the Editorial Office.
2. The names of reviewers from a given calendar year are published in the second issue of CPH of the given year and on the website.

CPH Review Form