Article 1 - Publication Decision and Duties of the Editorial Board, Scientific Committee and Editorial Staff
1. The Editorial Board of the Journal, the Scientific Committee, and the members of the Editorial Staff are solely responsible for the decision to publish articles submitted to the Journal. The decision to accept or reject a contribution for publication is based exclusively on scientific relevance, including originality, clarity, and pertinence of the content, without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or academic, scientific, political opinions. The decision is bound by current legal provisions on defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
2. For publication decisions concerning the Essays and Notes and Comments sections, the journal’s editorial bodies rely on two external reviewers, chosen from among Italian and international professors, researchers, judges, and legal professionals affiliated with leading professional organizations.
3. The selection of the reviewers respects subject-matter expertise and rotation principles; at the same time, it ensures that reviewers do not evaluate submissions with which they have a current or potential conflict of interest, arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors or entities involved in the creation of the work.
4. The Editorial Board ensures the timeliness of the review process, from submission to communication of the outcome to the authors.
5. The Editorial Board guarantees confidentiality throughout the review process, which follows a double-blind peer review model, in its dealings with reviewers, authors, and third parties. Unpublished material submitted by authors may not be disclosed or used by the Editorial Board members without the authors’ consent.
6. For publication in the Materials section, no external review is required, as the nature of the materials justifies a simplified evaluation of publishability by the Editorial Board and Editorial Staff.
7. The section The Most Beautiful Words of Justice (Le più belle Parole di Giustizia) is dedicated to the most significant lectures held during the "Parole di Giustizia" festival and key scientific events hosted by the Department of Law. Contributions are selected by the Editorial Board in coordination with the section’s curator.
8. The Editorial Board is responsible for handling reports—regardless of source—concerning inaccuracies, errors, conflicts of interest, or plagiarism arising during or after the review process. When appropriate, the Editorial Board may allow corrections, the publication of an erratum, or in serious cases of research misconduct, retraction of the article. In all such cases, the authors will be consulted and kept informed throughout the procedure.
9. The Editorial Board ensures the protection of the privacy rights of individuals cited in the contributions and documents published in the Journal, in compliance with current legal provisions.

Article 2 - Duties of Reviewers
1. Reviewers must decline the assignment if they feel unqualified to evaluate the submission, if they identify conflicts of interest, or if they believe they cannot complete the evaluation within the timeframe set by the Editorial Board. In the latter case, reviewers and the Board may agree on an alternative deadline, provided this does not compromise the timeliness of the review process.
2. Submissions under evaluation must be treated as confidential documents and may not be used for personal research before publication. In any case, confidential information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal or third-party benefit.
3. The review must be conducted impartially and solely based on scientific relevance. Reviewers must provide a detailed and structured evaluation, considering the organization of the manuscript, critical argumentation, jurisprudential or statutory references, bibliography, and writing style. For each of these elements, reviewers will provide an assessment using the form provided by the Editorial Staff. In addition to the detailed review, reviewers must also provide an overall recommendation on the publishability of the work, including conditional acceptance subject to specific revisions.
4. Reviewers are given a maximum of thirty days to complete their evaluation. If they fail to meet this deadline, the submission will be reassigned to another reviewer.
5. If reviewers identify substantial similarities or overlap between the submission and any other published work, they are required to notify the Editorial Board.

Article 3 - Duties of Authors
1. Authors must comply with the principles of fairness and scientific integrity throughout the drafting of their work and their collaboration with the Editorial Board and Staff during the entire evaluation process.
2. Authors guarantee the originality of the submission and, where applicable, the authenticity of facts or data used.
3. Texts drawn from other works, including those of the same authors, must be paraphrased or quoted literally, with proper citation of the source in all cases. All sources referenced in the development of the submission must be indicated, regardless of explicit citations.
4. Authors guarantee that their submission has not been previously published. During the review process, manuscripts cannot be submitted to other journals.
5. Authors retain copyright of their work and guarantee its publication under a Creative Commons (CC) license. The standard license is “CC-BY 4.0 Attribution,” which allows others to share the work provided that the original digital version is fully cited, a link to the license is provided, and any modifications are indicated.
6. Authorship is limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All significant contributors must be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are included, have reviewed and approved the final version, and agree to its submission.
7. Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect the results or interpretation of the manuscript. Any specific financial support must also be indicated.
8. If authors have advocated the manuscript’s theses in legal proceedings or have been appointed by any involved party (current or potential), or if they regularly collaborate with such parties, the manuscript must include a declaration of this circumstance, clearly indicating the professional role of the authors in the case and the source of any professional assignment.
9. Should authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the Editorial Board and collaborate to decide whether to issue a correction or retraction.
10. Authors are required to follow the editorial rules published on the “Submissions” page.