Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Erasmus Law Review’s Code of Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement


1.1. Authors should ensure that they submitted an entirely original work and cited content from other scientific sources appropriately.

1.2. The submitted paper must not contain any form of plagiarism (including auto-plagiarism, i.e. repeated publication of the Authors’ own work without any significant new scientific contribution) or other serious ethical violations. In case of suspicion of plagiarism and/or ethical violations, Editors have the right to refuse the publication of the submitted paper at any stage of the editorial process.

1.3. Authors should ensure that the submitted paper is not under consideration, or accepted for publication, or published elsewhere (requirement of originality). Editors may depart from this rule in exceptional cases and when the original publisher is also consenting (e.g. when the original paper was not in English).

1.4. Authors should disclose any potential conflict of interest (in particular with, but not limited to, Editors, Editorial Board Members, potential Peer Reviewers) at the time of submission.

1.5. Authors should ensure that any person named as co-Author of the paper is aware of the fact and has agreed to being so named. The Authors’ names should be listed on the article in order of their contribution to the article, and only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as Authors.

1.6. Authors always retain their academic independence and have right to disagree with Reviewer's recommendations, and/or to decide not to incorporate all the suggested modifications, but they are required to justify their decisions to Editors. 

1.7. Where an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/hers that has been published in the journal, he/she has an obligation to promptly notify the Editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or retract it as appropriate.

1.8. Authors may be asked to provide sufficient insight into the underlying data or sources of their study, if any doubts arise about their truthfulness during the publication process or afterwards.

1.9. The articles in Erasmus Law Review are “golden” Open Access, meaning that they are freely downloadable by everyone. However, reprinting an article (in English) published in the Erasmus Law Review in another publication outlet is only possible with prior express consent of the Editors and the Publisher.

1.10. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions (including the case of editorial omission) to the Editor-in-Chief.


2.1. Editors are solely and independently responsible for deciding which submitted paper should be published (based on, but not exclusively, the Peer Reviewers’ opinions). Editors decide on the acceptance of the submitted paper without regard to the Authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Editorial decisions on accepting a submitted paper are based on the paper’s scientific quality, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the Erasmus Law Review.

2.2. Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding Author, Editorial Board Members, Peer Reviewers (excluding any information about the Author, with special regard to the requirements of the double-blind peer review process), and the Publisher.

2.3. Editors are not entitled to use any part of an unpublished paper for their own research purposes without Authors’ explicit and prior written consent.

2.4. Editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Submitted papers are typically reviewed by two Peer Reviewers. Smaller research notes and introductory or summarizing contributions may be reviewed by one Peer Reviewer or one or two Editorial Board members. Editors shall select Peer Reviewers that are independent from the Author and who have suitable expertise in the relevant field. Under exceptional circumstances and after sustained efforts to find a Peer Reviewer, an article can also be reviewed by an Editorial Board Member and a Peer Reviewer.

2.5. Editors are responsible for the double-blind peer review process, providing anonymity for both Authors and Peer Reviewers during the peer review. The identity of Peer Reviewers will under no circumstances be revealed to Authors.

2.6. Editors should report any possible conflict of interest during the editorial process (with Authors, Peer Reviewers, other Editors, Editorial Board Members, or else) to the Editor-in-Chief and should exclude themselves from editorial decisions in relation to papers in respect of which they have reported a conflict of interest.


3.1. The peer review procedure assists Editors in making editorial decisions and may also serve Authors in their efforts at improving the submitted paper. Peer Reviewers should assist in improving the quality of a submitted paper by reviewing the paper with care, consideration and objectivity, in a timely manner. Peer Reviewers are expected to provide recommendations to Editors and provide substantive comments and recommended changes to Authors.

3.2. Reviews should be conducted objectively and formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the Authors is inappropriate.

3.3. Peer Reviewers should inform Editors of any published or submitted content that is similar to the paper under review, or any suspected plagiarism or other ethical violation.

3.4. Peer Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to the paper under review. Conflicts of interest can be resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript.

3.5. Peer Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process. They are not entitled to use any part of an unpublished paper for their own research purposes.

4. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct

4.1. Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall Erasmus Law Review or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

4.2. In the event that Erasmus Law Review's publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in Erasmus Law Review, the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines in dealing with allegations.

Sign up for email alert

If you sign up for the free email alert from Erasmus Law Review, you will automatically receive a message when a new article is published on the website.