Peer review

Received contributions will be submitted by the Editorial Board to blind reviewers for judgment. The author will be notified within three months of whether his/her work has been accepted for publication and, whether it will be necessary to make any changes. In the case of a negative response, the author will be given an anonymous summary of the reviewer’s decision. The evaluation process is suspended during the month of August.

 

The Review Board includes the following professors: Jobe Abbass, José Ignacio Alonso Pérez, Nicolás Álvarez de las Asturias, José Antonio Araña, Sergio Aumenta, Juan Ignacio Bañares, Remigio Beneyto Berenguer, José Bernal, Giacomo Bertolini, Andrea Bettetini, Paolo Bianchi, María Blanco, Antonello Blasi, Giuliano Brugnotto, Joaquín Calvo-Álvarez, Carlo Cardia, Arturo Cattaneo, Daniel Cenalmor, Antonio Chizzoniti, Giuseppe Comotti, Pierluigi Consorti, Raffaele Coppola, Myriam Cortés, Andrea D’Auria, Massimo del Pozzo, Elena di Bernardo, Jean-Paul Durand, Gabriela Eisenring, Benedict Ejeh, P. Bruno Esposito, O.P., Costantino-Matteo Fabris, Carlo Fantappiè, Silvio Ferrari, Javier Ferrer Ortiz, Juan Fornés, Héctor Franceschi, José Antonio Fuentes, Ombretta Fumagalli Carulli, Carmen Garcimartín, Montserrat Gas Aixendri, Libero Gerosa, Paolo Gherri, Wojciech Góralski, Markus Graulich, José Luis Gutiérrez, Stephan Haering, Giacomo Incitti, David Jaeger, Janusz Kowal, Dominique Le Tourneau, Lorenzo Lorusso, Joaquín Mantecón, Venerando Marano, Kurt Martens, Federico Marti, María del Mar Martín, Javier Martínez-Torrón, Roberto Mazzola, Chiara Minelli, Cesare Mirabelli, Jorge Miras, Eduardo Molano, Paolo Moneta, Agostino Montan, Gloria Morán, Pedro Moreno, María Elena Olmos Ortega, Miguel Angel Ortiz, Vincenzo Pacillo, Rafael Palomino, Claudio Papale, Francesco Pappadia, Carmen Peña García, Bruno Pighin, Vicente Prieto, Fernando Puig, María Roca Fernández, Rafael Rodríguez Ocaña, Tomasz Rozkrut, Luigi Sabbarese, Antonio S. Sánchez-Gil, Nikolaus Schöch, Jean-Pierre Schouppe, Carlos Soler, Péter Szabó,, Daniel Tirapu,Vincenzo Turchi, José M. Vázquez García-Peñuela, Ana Vega, Antonio Viana, José Miguel Viejo-Ximénez.

 

Peer-reviewers will evaluate the article according the following criteria:

  1. relevance of the text to the scientific field of IUS 11 (legal discipline of the religious phenomenon, ecclesiastical law, canon law, history and systems of Church/State relations, history of religious institutions, religious comparative law, law of confessional pluralism, etc.: cf. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, Ministerial Decree of 7 June 2012 No. 76);
  2. critical knowledge of doctrine and related jurisprudence;
  3. methodological correctness;
  4. clarity in exposition;
  5. originality.

Evaluation of the article can lead to the following results:

  1. publishable, subject to potential modifications according to the journal’s editorial criteria;
  2. publishable after making a few indicated corrections;
  3. publishable only after adequate re-elaboration (the reasons for which are to be justified);
  4. unpublishable.