Peer review

The reviewing process

The need for staff training within the entities active in the public order and security field, in protecting and promoting human rights resulted from several reasons, among which, at the time, we noted, at the European level, the concerns of the Council of Europe, which pays special attention to the development of a culture of human rights based on human rights education for democratic citizenship and internally, upon the Code of Police ethic and deontology, which states in Article 2, paragraph 2, that the purpose of this code is to ensure the ethical conduct of the police officer by forming and promoting a culture of appropriate professional training and an education of the staff in its spirit, […] and achieving in this way, the balance between the rights of citizens, the interests of the public authorities and the rights and obligations of the police.

The Journal „Human Rights in Law Enforcement” uses a system of anonymity (blind peer review) on reviewing and evaluation studies and research articles proposed for publication. This system consists of a critical review of the materials proposed for publication, in order to increase the scientific quality of the journal, and requires each material to be evaluated by two expert reviewers, the identity of the article’s author(s) being unknown to them.

Initially, the materials are reviewed by the editors of the Editorial board to see if the subject of the material proposed for publication corresponds to the theme, mission and objectives of the journal, and the drafting rules set out in the Guidelines publishing rules are complied with.

Subsequently, each work proposed for publication shall be subject to a reviewing of the content, being evaluated by expert reviewers. In the review process, expert reviewers observe the following criteria:

  1. a) The quality of the scientific content of the material proposed for publication – the scientific substantiation of the content of the material, the proper use of research methods, and the presence of relevant scientific references.
  2. b) The relevance and the impact of the work – the actuality of the analyzed topic the presence of new (original) elements, the possible impact on the analyzed field, the designation of proposals or recommendations by the author.
  3. c) The compliance with the drafting technical criteria – the structure (abstract, keywords, introduction, body of the paper, conclusions and recommendations, bibliography), the accuracy of content, the clarity of expression.

Following the reviewing process, the expert reviewers will submit to the Editorial Committee a report of review, containing one of the following recommendations on the proposed publication: acceptance without objection, acceptance after revision, rejection.