1. After an initial and positive evaluation of the article by the editorial board, two competent and independent reviewers are appointed. The reviewers are independent researchers.

2. Two positive reviews are needed for an article to be published. In the case that one reviewer recommends an article for publication and the other rejects it, a third reviewer is appointed to evaluate the text. Two negative reviews complete the review process for the rejected article.

3. A double-blind review process is used. The author and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The text should be prepared in such a way as to prevent the reviewer from identifying the author. Reviewers and authors of articles are not affiliated to the same university and there is no conflict of interest between them (official dependence, direct scientific cooperation, direct personal relations). Reviewers cannot be members of the editorial board of Civitas et Lex.

4. Reviewers are not allowed to make use of reviewed articles before their publication. 

5. The reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial board when he notices any similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.

6. The review is in writing and must contain an unambiguous and reasoned decision, which takes the form of one of three variants: 

• accept the article, no significant alterations suggested,
• accept the article, but suggest changes as specified below,
• reject the article.

7. The criteria for accepting an article for publication or rejecting it can be found in the review form, which is available in three language versions:

• Polish Form
  
• English Form
• Italian Form

8. After receiving the review, the preparation of which should not exceed three weeks, the editorial board informs the author about the reviewer’s decision as well as about any comments made by him. Then the author has the opportunity to respond to them and introduce corrections or changes to the text.

9. Based on positive reviews and taking into account the comments contained therein, the final decision to publish the article is made by the Editor-in-chief.

10. After editing, typesetting and computer compilation, the author receives the article for author’s proofreading.

11. Names of reviewers of particular articles are not disclosed. Once a year the journal publishes the general list of reviewers on its website.

12. The procedure of reviewing articles adopted by the editorial office takes into account, among others, recommendations of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education: Good practices in reviewing procedures in science 

13. The editorial office makes every effort to maintain the highest standards at every stage of reviewing process. For this purpose, the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed.