Title of the article *

First and last name of the reviewer *

1. The subject of the scientific paper is suitable for publication in RDC?

• Yes
• Moderately so
• No

If your answer is „Moderately so” or NO, please explain:

2. The title clearly describes the content of the article?

• Yes
• Requires modification for it to be compliant with the journal theme
• No

If your answer is „Requires modification” or NO, please explain:

3. The Abstract describes the objectives, results and implications of the study?

• Yes
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

4. The introductory section includes: identifying the problem investigated, novelty compared to existing doctrinal approaches, research structure and detailing research methods used?

• Yes
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

5. The article meets the technical requirements drafting provided by the Authors Guide? The Author Guide can be found here: https://revistadedreptconstitutional.ro/authors-guide/

• Yes
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

6. How would you describe the writing style?

• Suitable for an expert in the field of law
• Reveals general knowledge in the field of law
• Suitable for the non-specialist in the field of law
• Superficial

7. How would you assess the coherence and clarity of expression?

• Satisfactory
• Could be improved
• Poor

8. How do you evaluate the scientific novelty of the article?

• The article presents novelties
• The article is not distinguished in particular by novelties
• The article does not contain novelties

9. The research methods used by the author are appropriate for a scientific paper in the legal field?

• Appropriate
• Needs Improvement
• Inappropriate

10. The article demonstrates a reasonable knowledge of the relevant literature in the field?

• Yes
• No

If the answer is NO indicate the important works (books, articles) that were omitted by the author.

11. The article represents an original contribution with impact on the development of scientific theory in the field of constitutional law?

• Yes
• Moderately so
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

12. Section of conclusions includes research results and ways to exploitation of the results?

• Yes
• Needs improvement
• No

If your answer is „Needs improvement” or NO, please explain:

13. Citations of bibliographical sources in footnotes

• Yes
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

14. The reference works cited in article are mentioned in the Bibliography section as indicated in the Authors Guide?

• Yes
• No

If your answer is NO, please explain:

After evaluation, I recommend: *

• Publication of the article
• Publication of the article only if it respects the observations of this evaluation form
• Rejection of the article

Submit

IMPORTANT NOTE

Reviewers must call to the responsible editor’s attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.

In the conducting of the evaluation, the reviewers will consider the provisions of:
– the Authors Guide (link)
– the Statement of Ethics and Malpractice  (link)