1. Texts submitted for publication in Civitas. Studies in Political Philosophy are subject to an initial assessment by the Editorial Board or by the editor(s) of the thematic issue.

The outcome of this assessment may be:

(a) rejection of the text due to its failure to meet the journal’s standards concerning article structure, academic quality, language, publication ethics, or for other justified reasons;

(b) submission of the text for peer review.

Average time to an editorial decision: 60 days.

 

2. All submissions that successfully pass the first stage of assessment are subject to a double-blind peer-review procedure, which is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and ensures mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers.

No fewer than two independent reviewers are appointed for each text. Independence is understood as the absence of a shared institutional affiliation, close academic collaboration, a professional relationship involving hierarchical dependence, or personal relationships with the author(s).

The review process is external, which means that only in particularly justified cases may a member of the Editorial Team serve as one of the reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief or the thematic editor(s) of a given issue may not review texts submitted to that issue. Individuals who have previously published an article in the biannual journal Civitas. Studies in Political Philosophy may be invited to serve as reviewers.

(a) If one review is positive and the other negative, the Editorial Team or the thematic editor(s) may—following a thorough discussion and assessment of the article in light of the reviews—decide to accept or reject the text, or appoint a third reviewer.

(b) If substantial revisions to the text and its subsequent re-review have been recommended, two reviewers are appointed for the next stage of the review process. Whenever possible, these are the same reviewers who assessed the text at the first stage and whose task is to determine whether the changes introduced by the author(s) comply with the recommendations contained in the reviews.

If it is not possible to obtain the opinions of the reviewers from the first stage, the article is submitted for assessment to newly appointed reviewers whose competence to evaluate the manuscript in the relevant subject area is demonstrated by their publication record.

Average time to receive peer reviews from the date of submission: 150 days.

 

3. On the basis of the reviews received, the Editorial Board or the thematic editor(s) of the issue decide whether to:

(a) send the author(s) a decision rejecting the text, together with the reasons for the decision (consisting of part or all of the reviews and, where applicable, an additional opinion from a member of the Editorial Board);

(b) send the author(s) comments and a list of required revisions (including both the reviewers’ recommendations and any additional recommendations made by the Editorial Board itself) that must be implemented before the manuscript can proceed further in the editorial process;

(c) submit the manuscript for assessment by an additional reviewer;

(d) accept the manuscript for publication and inform the corresponding author accordingly.

4. If the author(s) are sent comments and a list of required revisions, they are obliged either to revise the article accordingly or to respond to all comments, objections, and suggestions received.

The author(s) have 30 days to make the revisions and submit the final version of the text to the Editorial Board. Failure to meet this deadline may result in the text being postponed to a subsequent issue or in the withdrawal of the submission.

Average time from submission to publication: 300 days.