Peer review process

The Scientific Bulletin of the MPU School for Higher Studies (BCESMPU) adopts a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, and consistency of submitted manuscripts with its editorial scope, in accordance with the Editorial Policy for Technical and Scientific Publications (Ordinance No. 137 of June 17, 2024 

       1. Preliminary Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary screening to assess their compliance with the journal's editorial policies and formal submission requirements.

At this stage, submissions are also screened for similarity, plagiarism, and self-plagiarism using dedicated plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts that do not comply with the editorial guidelines may be returned to the authors for revision or, where appropriate, declined.

       2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary screening are submitted for evaluation by two independent peer reviewers under a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, institutional independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest, thereby ensuring the impartiality and quality of the review process.

       3. Evaluation Criteria

In assessing a manuscript, peer reviewers consider, among other aspects

  • Institutional relevance;
  • Broad applicability and general interest;
  • Originality and novelty;
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundnes;
  • Topical relevance and currency of the literature reviewed
  • Contribution to the advancement of the field of knowledge;
  • Potential to foster critical reflection on the legal landscape;
  • Compliance with the journal's technical and formatting requirements for manuscript submission.

    4. Possible Editorial Decisiosn

Based on the peer reviewers' evaluations, the following recommendations may be made:

  • acceptance for publication with or without minor revisins; 
  • request for clarification from the author(s) or for revisions to the manuscript, followed by resubmmission for further review; or
  • rejection of the submission.

    5. Disagreement Between Peer Reviewers

In the event of a disagreement or conflicting recommendations between the peer reviewers, the manuscript will be referred to a reviewer, whose assessment will be decissive. The third reviewer may also recommend that the author(s) revise the manuscript before issuing a final recommendation.

       6. Final Acceptance

A manuscript will be accepted for publication only upon receipt of two favorable peer review recommendations.