Blind Peer-Review Process

Fides Law Review is a national indexed and peer-reviewed academic journal in which scientific articles are published through a blind review process.

At least two referees are appointed by the editor(s) according to the content of the manuscript and the referees' areas of expertise. All referee evaluation reports are sent anonymously electronically. The names of the reviewers are not mentioned in the reports and the journal due to the double-blinding method. Upon request, a written document indicating the contribution to the journal as a referee can be given to the referees. All authors who have published in the journal are deemed to have agreed to contribute to the journal as a referee in future issues.

Blind review processes directly affect the quality of academic publications. The evaluation process is carried out with the principle of bilateral blind refereeing. The referees cannot communicate directly with the authors, and the evaluation and referee reports are transmitted through the journal management system. In this process, evaluation forms and referee reports are sent to the author(s) through the editor. Double blind reviewing helps editors to make decisions in dialogue with authors. At the same time, authors have the opportunity to improve their work by obtaining important information about their work.

Publication decisions

Editors and the publisher send all manuscripts submitted for publication to at least two referees who are experts in their fields for evaluation. After the completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may get advice from other editors or reviewers in making this decision.


A referee invited for review should immediately report on his/her availability and those who feel unqualified to review the research should inform the editor about their decisions as soon as possible.


Manuscripts delivered to the referees should be treated as confidential documents. The manuscripts should not be shown to others, nor their contents should be discussed publicly. Only under the explicit authorization by the Editor-in-Chief, a reviewer can seek advice from her colleagues. The Editor-in-Chief will give this permission only under exceptional conditions. This rule also concerns the persons who declined to take part in the process as a referee.

Standards of objectivity

Personal critiques oriented towards the manuscripts’ authors is not an appropriate manner of conduct. Reviews should follow an objective procedure in their reports and upon the acceptance of referee duty, they accept that their comments are evidently supported by arguments that are of help to the authors in improving their work.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers have a duty to report to the authors any published work that is not part of the authors’ references. A reviewer should pay particular attention to the works in the field that are not cited by the authors or overlaps between different works. A reviewer should notify the editors regarding similarity with any other previously published work, or other manuscripts they have a knowledge of.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.