All contributions are subject to evaluation.

The implementation modalities are outlined below.


The anonymous, double-blind referee route has been chosen.
The author does not know who the evaluators will be and they do not know who the author is. The author will send the contribution to the Editorial Board in two versions, one identifiable and one anonymous, expressing his or her consent to submit the article to the evaluation of an expert in the disciplinary scientific field, or related fields, chosen by the Editorial Board from a special list.


The evaluation of the paper, far from being based on the author's personal convictions, theoretical orientations or school affiliations, will be based on the following parameters:

  • originality;
  • relevance to the scope of the IUS 11 scientific-disciplinary sector or related sectors;
  • knowledge and critical analysis of doctrine and jurisprudence;
  • correctness of the methodological framework;
  • formal (between title, summary, and abstract) and substantial internal consistency (with respect to the author's theoretical position);
  • clarity of exposition.


Experts entrusted with the evaluation of a contribution:

  • treat the text to be evaluated as confidential until it is published, and destroy all electronic and printed copies of articles still in draft form and their own reports once they have received confirmation from the editors that the report has been received;
  • do not reveal to others what writings they have judged; and do not disseminate such writings even in part;
  • assign a score from 1 to 5 - on the basis of pre-established parameters - and formulate a concise judgement, through a special form sent to the Editorial Board, regarding the originality, methodological accuracy and form of the writing, judging with objectivity, prudence and respect.


The outcome of the evaluation of the writing may be: (a) not publishable; (b) not publishable if not revised, stating why; (c) publishable after some modifications/additions, to be specified in detail; (d) publishable (subject to possible editing work for compliance with editorial criteria). Except in the latter case, the outcome is communicated to the author by the Editorial Office, respecting the anonymity of the evaluator.


The evaluators and the members of the Management, the Scientific Committee and the Editorial Board undertake to scrupulously respect the confidentiality of the content of the form and the judgement expressed, to be observed even after any publication of the paper. In the latter case, it will be acknowledged that the contribution has been submitted for evaluation.


The evaluators are chosen from among non-tenured and tenured scholars, both Italian and foreign, with a clear reputation and in-depth experience in the IUS 11 scientific-disciplinary sector or who, although belonging to other sectors, have made significant contributions to it.


On the basis of the summary judgement form drawn up by the evaluators, the Director decides whether to publish the paper, to ask for its revision or to reject it. The evaluation may be non-binding, provided that a contrary decision is taken by the Director and at least two members of the Scientific Committee.


The Director, or the Scientific Committee by majority vote, may decide without consulting a reviewer:

  • the publication of contributions by authors (foreigners and Italians) of recognised academic prestige or who hold positions of political-institutional importance in national, EU and international bodies, including confessional ones;
  • the publication of contributions that have already been published and whose publication is requested with the permission of the author and the editor of the journal;
  • the refusal to publish contributions that clearly lack the necessary requirements of scientificity, originality and relevance.