Editorial Process

Nullius is a biannual journal that publishes two issues per year (January and July). It is primarily aimed at the scholarly community of legal researchers, as well as researchers in Law related fields and allied disciplines, given the interdisciplinary nature of the work it publishes.

1. Aims

  • To publish original scientific output in the field of Law and legal studies, including interdisciplinary approaches from the humanities and social sciences, resulting from research carried out at national and international level.
  • To strengthen the social relevance and visibility of critical legal thinking and of the human sciences related to Law, by building knowledge based on rigorous scientific methods and tools.
  • To contribute to the consolidation of a scientific community in the field of Law and legal studies, both nationally and internationally.
  • To encourage legal and interdisciplinary research, promoting reflection on crucial aspects of everyday, social, political and institutional life.
  • To foster multidisciplinary research that connects Law with other areas of the humanities and social sciences.
  • To disseminate an open access scholarly journal that complies with the norms and quality standards required by major international indexing services.
  • To promote good research practices, academic ethics and respect for the principles of scientific integrity.
  • To prioritise spaces for reflection typical of legal studies (doctrine, case law, legal theory, constitutionalism, philosophy of law) and of the humanities in dialogue with the legal field.

2. Editorial team

Nullius works with an editorial team committed to academic quality and transparency throughout the publication process.

  • Manuscript management: the Director, the Editor in Chief and the Associate Editors oversee each submission, verifying compliance with formal requirements, editorial policies and good publication practices.
  • Scholarly review: the Editorial Board assesses thematic relevance and coherence with the journal’s scope and focus, while the Editorial Committee and the Advisory/Referees Committee — composed of recognised national and international scholars — ensure the scientific, methodological and argumentative rigour of each contribution.
  • Editorial decision: the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is taken by the responsible Editor, always grounded in the reports issued during the peer review process.

In addition, the institutional affiliation, city, country and email address of authors are made public in order to strengthen visibility, traceability and academic reliability.

3. Evaluation timelines

In the interest of transparency, Nullius informs authors of the estimated timelines for the editorial process:

  • Initial evaluation (preliminary editorial screening): up to 1 month.
  • Peer review: up to 3 months.
  • Final editorial decision (acceptance, request for revisions or rejection): up to 2 months.

These timeframes may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of expert reviewers, while every reasonable effort is made to communicate any delay in a timely manner.

4. Peer review

The journal adopts a peer review system in which all manuscripts are evaluated by external experts, both national and international, with no institutional ties to the publishing university. Each submitted text is anonymously reviewed by at least two independent specialists in the relevant discipline before publication.

4.1 Preliminary evaluation

Before being sent for peer review, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board, which verifies:

  • The originality and unpublished character of the work, using similarity detection and AI assisted tools (Compilatio) under human supervision.
  • The thematic relevance of the manuscript in relation to the journal’s aims, focus and scope.
  • Compliance with the formal and substantive requirements expected of a high quality scholarly publication.

At the end of this stage, authors are notified via the OJS platform whether their manuscript:

  • Proceeds to the peer review process.
  • Is rejected due to lack of relevance or serious non compliance with editorial policies (in which case the editors may suggest submission to another journal within the consortium, where appropriate).
  • Is returned so that the necessary editorial corrections can be made before peer review begins.

4.2 Type of review

  • Double blind review: used when the manuscript does not have a publicly available preliminary version (preprint).
  • Single blind review: used when the manuscript has a previously published preliminary version (preprint) in a repository or other platform.

In both cases, every effort is made to avoid conflicts of interest and to safeguard the independence of reviewers’ reports.

5. Principles and criteria for manuscript review

The journal guarantees that the peer review process is rigorous, transparent and impartial, and is grounded in ethical and scientific principles. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the following principles and criteria:

5.1 Fundamental principles of the evaluation process

  • Impartiality: all participants in the review process undertake to respect ethical values and the intellectual freedom of authors. No submission is discriminated against or excluded for presenting negative or unexpected results, provided that it meets the required scientific and methodological standards.
  • Honesty: evaluations are conducted with integrity, transparency and objectivity. Reviewers’ decisions are based exclusively on the scientific quality, argumentative soundness and relevance of the manuscript.
  • Confidentiality: confidentiality is maintained regarding the content of manuscripts and the identity of authors and reviewers, both during and after the evaluation process.
  • Originality: all manuscripts undergo an authenticity check using specialised similarity detection software (Compilatio) to ensure originality and to prevent plagiarism, self plagiarism and other forms of misconduct.
  • Assessment and rejection: acceptance or rejection of manuscripts is based on the principle of maintaining scientific quality and coherence with the journal’s thematic lines. Submissions showing indications of fraud or misconduct (for example, data manipulation, duplicate publication or fabricated results) will not be accepted.
  • Article retraction: if unreliability, serious errors, omission of essential sources or references, or any type of scientific fraud is detected, the journal may proceed with a public retraction of the article, preserving the record together with the official retraction notice, in accordance with its correction and retraction policies.
  • Conflict of interest: anyone with academic, professional, commercial or personal ties to the authors must refrain from taking part in the evaluation process, in order to preserve its integrity and transparency.

6. Review outcomes

Each manuscript may receive one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accepted: the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial standards and may require only minor adjustments suggested by reviewers or the editorial team.
  • Accepted with revisions: the manuscript is relevant to the journal but requires substantial changes (conceptual, methodological or in terms of writing) in order to achieve the required quality level. Authors must implement the suggested revisions within the specified deadline and resubmit a revised version together with a response to the reviewers’ comments.
  • Rejected: the manuscript does not meet the editorial quality criteria (for example, substantive shortcomings in the abstract, objectives, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions or references) or does not fit adequately within the journal’s research lines and focus. Rejection will be clearly justified on the basis of technical and scientific criteria.

This editorial process is designed to ensure that all articles published in Nullius meet the highest standards of quality, legal academic rigour, transparency and research ethics.