1. The review procedure for academic texts (academic articles and commentaries) submitted to the editorial office of the European Review of Law and International Relations (EL&IRR) is always a two-stage process. It begins at the EPPiSM editorial office with internal editorial reviews (stage one), prepared and submitted in writing or communicated orally to the editorial secretary by the editor-in-chief; the latter may use the opinions (written and oral) presented by members of the EPPiSM Programme Council, in accordance with their academic specialisation.

2. The final decision on whether to qualify a text for the second stage, i.e. external reviews, is made by the editor-in-chief. If the editorial office rejects a submitted text after the internal review process, it is not subject to further (external) review.

3. For each text that qualifies for the second stage, the editorial team – with the support of members of the EPPiSM Programme Council, if necessary – appoints at least two reviewers who are experienced researchers specialising in the subject matter of the text. The reviewers come from outside the author's affiliated institution and hold the academic title of professor or the academic degree of habilitated doctor. With the exception indicated in point 6, the EL&IRR editorial board may entrust the preparation of a review of a text authored by a person with a doctoral degree at most to persons with a doctoral degree if they have the relevant experience and specialist knowledge.

4. EL&IRR applies the principle of double-blind review, i.e. neither reviewer knows the identity of the author(s) until the article or commentary is published, and the authors do not know the identity of either reviewer. If, in exceptional cases and for justified reasons, it is necessary to disclose the author's personal details to the reviewer, the reviewer is required to submit a declaration of no conflict of interest; such a conflict is considered to be, in particular, a direct personal relationship or a relationship of professional subordination between the reviewer and the author.

5. The review is in electronic form. It is prepared on a special EL&IRR review form, which the editorial office makes available to reviewers electronically (after the reviewer logs in to the EL&IRR website). The form consists of a descriptive and a conclusion section, which the reviewer is required to complete. The conclusions of the review may only be as follows:
a) unconditional (without author's corrections) acceptance of the text for publication [positive review]; b) rejection of the text, i.e. refusal to publish it [negative review];
c) conditional acceptance of the text for publication – after meeting the specified additional requirements, usually consisting of introducing (to varying degrees) author's corrections and/or additions [conditional review], whereby the reviewer is required to indicate whether the review procedure needs to be repeated after these changes have been made.
If the review procedure has already been initiated in writing, it shall be completed in this form.

6. In disputed situations, in particular when one of the two reviews is negative, an additional third reviewer (super-reviewer) is appointed, whose opinion determines whether the text is accepted for publication or rejected. The super-reviewer must hold the academic title of professor or the academic degree of habilitated doctor.                                                                                                                                   

7. The reviewer evaluates the text primarily in terms of its content: scientific quality and originality, consistency with the journal's profile, clarity of communication, research methodology, selection and use of sources, compliance with publication ethics, etc. In particular, the reviewer should indicate sources that the author has not cited, even though (in the reviewer's opinion) they should have been cited. The reviewer should also inform the editorial board of any significant similarities, even partial overlaps, between the content of the reviewed text and any other published work known to them, or of any suspicion of plagiarism or the use of artificial intelligence. The opinion also concerns formal aspects: the linguistic correctness of the text (including the use of a foreign language, if it was written in one), the correctness of abstracts, keywords, footnotes, etc. In order to verify the linguistic level of publications written in a foreign language, the editorial board may appoint additional persons with the necessary professional and linguistic knowledge.

8. All comments contained in both reviews are forwarded to the author. If the review is conditional, the author undertakes to fulfil (within the time limit agreed with the editorial office) the conditions for publication indicated by the reviewer and to respect all of their comments and suggestions. If the reviewer has stipulated that the text may only be published after the author has made corrections and additions, the editorial office will send the modified version to the reviewer for approval.

9. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's comments, they have the right to respond. The author sends their response to the editorial board, clearly indicating which elements of the review it concerns and justifying their position. The final decision on whether to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the author's response to the reviewer's comments shall be made by the editor-in-chief after consultation with members of the EL&IRR Programme Council specialising in the subject matter of the text. In exceptional cases, the procedure set out in point 6 may apply.

10. The time for preparing a review in EL&IRR should not exceed three weeks; it may be extended only in justified cases.

11. The full list of reviewers cooperating with EL&IRR is published on the journal's website, usually at the end of each calendar year, without specifying the titles of the reviewed texts.

12. All reviews and their subject matter are treated as confidential documents.

13. Submission of a text for publication is tantamount to the author's consent to undergo the review procedure adopted by EL&IRR.