Code of Ethics

This Code of Ethics aims to lay down rules for publication of papers in Jurisprudence journal. It applies to the evaluation of submitted papers by the editorial team, as well as to the subsequent peer review process. Its wording is binding on authors, editors and reviewers.

Any complaints concerning a breach of rules of the Code of Ethics are handled by the Editorial Board of Jurisprudence. Complaints can be addressed to the Chair of the Editorial Board (see Contacts and Editorial Board). 

1. Authors

1.1     All papers submitted to the editorial team of Jurisprudence for publication must be original works.  The papers submitted for publication must not have been previously published, either in whole or in part, in another journal, monograph, website, blog or any other public medium.  An exception to this rule can be the papers which have been previously published in conference proceedings or in theses or dissertations (master´s thesis, rigorosum thesis, PhD thesis, habilitation thesis etc.). Such an exception may only be allowed if the author clearly informed the editorial team in advance about the fact that the paper had already been published elsewhere. 

1.2     A paper may not be submitted by the author simultaneously to more journals. The author of the submitted paper may only submit the paper to another journal once the paper has been rejected by the Jurisprudence editorial team. 

1.3     The authors whose papers have been returned during the peer review process for revision may submit another version of the same paper to the editorial board. If the new version is not deemed suitable for publication without further modifications, the submitted paper will be rejected for good. If the authors fail to submit a revised version of the original paper to the editorial team, the authors have no right for their paper to be published.

2. Plagiarism

2.1  The authors are required to ensure that their papers do not infringe on copyright of other authors. Where the authors use another author´s work for which the other author´s authorization is necessary, the authors are required to obtain necessary authorization before submitting the paper to the editorial team.   

2.2      Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. Authors are required to cite consistently works of other authors whose ideas they are using, both verbatim (by way of a quotation) and as a paraphrase. If authors breach the non-plagiarism rule, they may not be allowed to publish papers in Jurisprudence in the future. 

2.3      Self-plagiarism (repeated publication of one´s own works) is unacceptable. The authors are required to quote their own works too if they are using, in their submitted paper, their own text which had already been published elsewhere in identical wording. Such text must be enclosed by quotation marks as a quotation. However, authors referring to their older works should avoid excessive, calculated references to their own works. 

2.4      Authors publishing the outcomes of their research are required to mention all their co-workers who had substantially participated in their joint research, in particular if they also co-authored the paper which is a written output of their joint project. This rule applies even if such persons are not formally mentioned as researchers (e.g. students). Those co-workers must be mentioned as co-authors of the paper. Persons who had partially participated in the preparation of the paper must be mentioned as co-authors at least by way of footnote.

2.5      Authors of papers are required to observe standard practices and rules of research work. Their conclusions, which are set out in the paper submitted to the editorial team, must not contain misleading or apparently fabricated information. 

3. Editors

3.1      Members of the editorial team and Editorial Board must be independent. Editors do not abuse their position and they treat authors in a confidential, unbiased, constructive, sensitive and prompt manner. Editors evaluate manuscripts only based on the manuscripts´ scholarly merits and contribution to professional community, without ideological prejudice or personal favouritism. At the same time, the editorial team respects methodological and theoretical pluralism, as well as plurality of opinion and freedom of speech, in compliance with applicable laws. 

3.2      Editors handle submitted papers according to editorial principles and editorial policy which have been declared in advance, taking into consideration peer review reports. Editors sufficiently explain to the author of the submitted paper the opinion on the publication of the paper. Where appropriate, editors propose and recommend how the author should revise the paper with a view to publication. The editorial team may insist on the revision of the paper in line with the opinion of reviewers or editorial team, while respecting freedom of speech and plurality of opinion. The editorial team may only reject a manuscript without explanation if the manuscript does not correspond to the declared basic qualitative criteria for evaluating submitted papers.  

3.3      Jurisprudence editors are required to respect copyright and publication ethics. They must never make the submitted paper available to any person other than reviewers, the author or co-author, other editors or members of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board members who obtained the paper from the editorial team must not make it, or a part of it, available to any other person. Both editors and the Editorial Board members are required to maintain anonymity of reviewers and authors throughout the peer review process. 

3.4      The editorial team is entitled to publish a paper which received a negative evaluation from one of the reviewers. In that case the editorial team must explain the underlying reasons in detail to the reviewer.

3.5      The editorial team ensures anonymity of papers sent to reviewers by deleting any information that would reveal the author´s identity. The reviewer´s identity may only be revealed if the reviewer agrees. Peer review reports are archived by the editorial team, together with other documents related to the peer review process. 

3.6      If a paper is submitted for publication by an editorial team member, a different editor will manage the peer review process. Editors are required to avoid conflict of interest in every way.

4. Reviewers

4.1      Papers submitted by authors for publication in peer-reviewed sections are subject to the peer review process (the procedure is explained in Peer Review Process).

4.2      Reviewers evaluate the submitted papers objectively, with fairness, consistently and in accordance with the criteria laid down for individual sections. Papers to be published are evaluated by the editorial team and reviewers exclusively according to standard scholarly methods which are usually used in professional journals.  

4.3      For the sake of objectivity, at least two external experts on a particular topic or in a particular field take part in the peer review process, primarily from academia or research community, or outside academic and research environment, but with high professional standing. Similarly, members of the Jurisprudence Advisory Board can also serve as reviewers. Reviewers who review the manuscript should, where possible, come from different workplaces, and they must not come from the same workplace as the author of the paper under review.

4.4      The peer review process is double blind, which means that the author´s identity is hidden to the reviewers and the reviewers´ identity is hidden to the author. Reviewers review the submitted papers within stipulated time limits.

4.5      A person who in any way participated in the drafting of the paper cannot be appointed as reviewer, even if he/she acted as a supervisor of a thesis or dissertation, or a guarantor. Reviewers respect the confidential nature of the peer review process and they do not disclose information concerning the manuscript or peer review process to third persons.

4.6      The editorial team takes the opinions of reviewers into consideration. However, it is not bound by them. Based on the peer review report the editorial team may place the paper in a different section. 



editorial office
Charles University
Faculty of Law

office no. 204
Nám. Curieových 7
116 40 Praha 1

Wolters Kluwer, a. s.

U Nákladového nádraží 3265/10
130 00 Praha 3