Skip to navigation – Site map

Selection Criteria

Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law is a scientific journal with an international advisory board and high-quality review criteria. The journal publishes several types of contributions, which follow different criteria.

Original scientific papers that pass the first stage of desk evaluation by the editors are submitted to external experts for a blind peer review. Just as the names of the authors of contributions are not made known to their reviewers, so the authors of submitted contributions do not know who is reviewing their contributions. Authors usually receive reviews within three months from the moment they submit their contributions, although in exceptional circumstances the procedure may take longer. Possible review outcomes include:

(1.) The submitted contribution is accepted for publication on the basis of two positive blind peer reviews and a positive evaluation of the editors.

(2.) The contribution is accepted provided it is modified: reviewers' comments (and those of editors, if any) are communicated to the author so that he/she might decide whether to submit the paper, improved in accordance with given proposals, for publication. Should the final version not convince the editors, its publication may still be rejected.

(3.) The publication of the submitted contribution is rejected. In this case, the author is provided with the reasons for the rejection made on the basis of blind peer reviews or editorial comments. The author may, however, be encouraged to rewrite and resubmit the paper.

In addition to original scientific papers, Revus also publishes critical book reviews and translations of relevant legal discussions from foreign languages into Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin. None of these are subject to blind peer reviews; in this case, the fulfilment of scientific publication criteria is verified by the editors.

  • OpenEdition Journals