Journal Policy

Peer-Review Process

PRIUS – Journal of Law and Political Science uses a double-blind peer-review process for scientific articles: authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

All submissions first undergo an initial editorial screening (fit with the journal’s scope, compliance with author guidelines, ethical requirements, and academic integrity checks). Manuscripts that pass this stage are normally sent to two external reviewers selected based on their demonstrated expertise and academic track record in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are expected to provide reasoned and constructive reports and must disclose any conflict of interest that could compromise impartiality; where a conflict exists, the reviewer will be replaced. Editorial decisions may include: reject, minor revision, major revision, or accept, and additional rounds of review may be required.

The evaluation timeline generally ranges from two to four months, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.

Appeals. Authors may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration. The Editorial Board will assess the appeal and may uphold the decision, request an additional review, or appoint new reviewers, as appropriate.

 

Policy on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The journal is firmly committed to academic integrity, methodological transparency, and scientific rigor. Accordingly, the following rules govern the responsible use of AI-based tools in the preparation and submission of manuscripts:

General principle

AI tools may be used as support, but they must not replace intellectual authorship, critical analysis, or conceptual development, which remain the exclusive responsibility of human authors. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and traceability of the content.

Permitted uses (under human supervision)

Authors may use AI tools only for complementary tasks such as:

  • grammar and spelling correction;
  • improving clarity and style (limited rephrasing);
  • preliminary organization of ideas or drafting outlines;
  • computational support for data processing/analysis, provided it is reported in a verifiable way in the Methods section (tool, purpose, and—where applicable—procedure/parameters).

Mandatory AI-use disclosure

Any use of AI tools must be explicitly disclosed in an “AI Use Statement” placed before the references. The statement must specify:

  • the tool used (and, where applicable, version);
  • the purpose of use;
  • the scope of assistance.

Omission or misrepresentation of this information will be considered serious misconduct and may result in editorial rejection and/or post-publication actions.

Prohibited uses

AI must not be used to:

  • generate, fabricate, or alter data;
  • manipulate results;
  • create misleading figures/images or fictional content;
  • produce references or citations to non-existent sources;
  • draft the theoretical framework, discussion, or conclusions in a predominantly AI-generated manner.

Confidentiality in peer review

Reviewers and editors must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and the peer-review process. Uploading manuscripts (or substantial excerpts), data, or review materials to external AI tools is not permitted without editorial authorization and adequate confidentiality safeguards.

Editorial and ethical oversight

The Editorial Board may apply integrity checks at any stage of the editorial process to ensure compliance with this policy. If improper AI use or fabricated content is suspected, the manuscript may be returned for correction, rejected at initial screening, or subject to post-publication actions, depending on severity.

 

Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion

The journal promotes an editorial environment based on equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation, age, disability, race/ethnicity, nationality, religion, ideology, or any other condition. Any form of harassment, intimidation, discriminatory language, or degrading treatment in editorial communications, reviews, or interactions with authors is rejected.

The Editorial Board will implement reasonable measures to reduce bias in the evaluation process (e.g., maintaining double-blind review, managing conflicts of interest, and seeking diversity in reviewer selection where feasible).

Responsible reporting of sex/gender (SAGER). For empirical research involving individuals, populations, or identifiable data, the journal recommends following the principles of the SAGER Guidelines to:

  • use the terms sex and gender correctly, avoiding inappropriate interchange;

  • report how sex/gender were defined and measured (where applicable);

  • include analyses or considerations when sex/gender are relevant to outcomes, effects, access, impacts, or bias;

  • if sex/gender are not considered relevant, provide a brief justification (e.g., due to study design, data source, or scope).

 

Conflicts of Interest

Authors

Authors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest (financial, institutional, professional, personal, or otherwise) that could influence the research or its interpretation. Disclosures should include funding sources, support, and relevant affiliations.

Reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when a conflict of interest or relationship could compromise impartiality. The journal may reassign manuscripts as appropriate.

 

Academic Integrity and Misconduct

The journal does not tolerate misconduct, including (but not limited to): plagiarism, substantial self-plagiarism, redundant/duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, manipulation of results, inappropriate authorship practices, citation manipulation, or deceptive use of tools (including AI).

When there are reasonable grounds for concern, the journal may:

  • request clarifications, underlying data, or supporting documentation;
  • pause the review process;
  • reject the manuscript at any stage;
  • notify relevant institutions when appropriate, consistent with the severity of the case and good editorial practice.

 

Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Notices

If errors or integrity concerns are identified after publication, the journal may issue, as appropriate:

  • a Correction (erratum/corrigendum) when the error does not invalidate the core of the work;
  • an Expression of Concern when substantial doubts exist and an investigation is ongoing;
  • a Retraction when misconduct or major errors are confirmed and the findings or conclusions are invalidated.

Post-publication notices will be visible, linked to the article, and will preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

 

Data, Materials Availability, and Transparency

For empirical research, the journal promotes methodological transparency. Where applicable, authors should indicate:

  • whether data/materials/code are available and where;
  • access conditions (public, upon request, restricted due to confidentiality/legal constraints);
  • a clear justification for restrictions, when relevant.

When data are sensitive or legally restricted, non-public sharing may be acceptable, provided this is clearly explained.

 

Ethics for Research Involving Humans and Sensitive Data

When manuscripts involve human participants (e.g., interviews, surveys, experiments, participant observation) or the processing of personal/sensitive data, authors must:

  • state compliance with applicable regulations and relevant ethical standards;
  • indicate whether ethics approval was obtained (where required) or justify non-applicability;
  • describe informed consent procedures when relevant;
  • ensure privacy protection, anonymization, and secure data handling, especially where risks to participants may exist.

Responsible Research Assessment (DORA). PRIUS endorses the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and promotes assessment focused on the intrinsic merit of each manuscript’s content. Accordingly, the journal discourages the use of journal-based metrics (e.g., impact factors) as proxies for the quality of articles or authors, and bases editorial and peer-review decisions on criteria of rigor, originality, clarity, and contribution.