Constitutional Law Review is committed to complying with ethical standards throughout the publication process. Authors, editors and referees have the responsibility to comply with these standards.


 By submitting an article to RDC for publication, the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously.   They also warrant that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate bibliographical references and using quotes.  The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one publication for simultaneous consideration.

 Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group  and the order of authors are all correct at submission.  Authors need to make sure to respect third parties rights such as copyright and/or moral rights.

 Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).  Research articles and non-research articles (e.g. Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made.  Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.

 Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error ( a correction or retraction). The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.

 In case of breach of copyright law/ in case of plagiarism, the entire responsibility rests with the author of the article. The editorial board of  Constitutional Law Review/Revista de drept constitutional (RDC) does not assume any liability for infringement by the authors of the regulations included in copyright legislation and the achievement of plagiarism. If discovered a case of violation of copyright law/plagiarism, the manuscript will be rejected or a published article will be retracted. 

 Materials for publication shall be submitted by authors exclusively electronically by e-mail (see CONTACT details)


Editors have complete responsibility and authority   to accept or reject an article if it does not meet the academic standards of the journal, if it does not harmonize with its objectives, or if it does not follow the instructions for authors.

 Editors  must give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its academic merit (importance, originality, clarity) without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editors must respect the intellectual independence of authors.

  Editors must avoid situations of  conflicts of interest in which the relationship could bias judgement of the manuscript. 

 Editors have to  manage the review process. Each paper is sent to two referees. The evaluation   process is double blind, the anonymity of the referees and that of the authors are maintained.  

Editors and the editorial staff must not disclose any non-public information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than referees and potential referees. Referee reports and referee identity can be shared with another editor if the processing of the submission is transferred.

 Editors have to  ensure the integrity of published content by encouraging the publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found and to  constantly improve the level of the journal, ensuring the quality of the articles it publishes.

 If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.


Each scientific article submitted for publication is reviewed by two independent external Reviewers.  If a Reviewer cannot prepare a review because of potential violation of the double-blind peer review procedure, they are obliged to   inform the Editorial Board of the fact.

The appointed Reviewer should prepare a review within the time of 2 (two) weeks. If the Reviewer is not capable of preparing a review within the defined time limit, they are obliged to notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible. In such a case another Reviewer is appointed.  

Reviewers will complete the Evaluation Form sent of the Editor in chief.  The reviews are aimed at evaluating the reliability of the submitted work and raising its scientific quality. They should be prepared in an objective manner, in accordance with the principles of editorial ethics, on the basis of scientific arguments and in compliance with the best of the Reviewer’s knowledge and their best will. The following are considered to be the basic guiding criteria and must be borne in mind while preparing a review: originality of the study, its scientific character, conformity with the profile of the Journal, the skill of formulating theses and proving them right or wrong, maturity of conducting a scientific discussion, the skill of formulating conclusions and opinions, proper making use of the available literature on the subject.

All commentaries, suggestions and evaluations must be expressed in the way that leaves no doubts as to their justifiability and ought to be supported with arguments of the substantive nature.

 The Reviewer informs the Editorial Board of each case of violation of the ethical principles binding in the Journal, in particular of their suspicion of any form of plagiarism being committed, indicating the reasons and the scope (including fragments of the text) which raise their objections.  

All the works submitted for reviewing are treated as confidential material. Showing them to other people, discussing them, expressing views included in them as the Reviewer’s own ones, or a Reviewer’s availing themselves of the content included in the work being reviewed prior to its publication shall be treated as highly unethical. The Reviewer is allowed to discuss the question of abiding by the editorial standards with the Editorial Board in order to make an assessment of the fact whether the principle of scientific reliability has been adhered to effectively.