Human and Law – Publication and Ethical Policies

Magyar nyelvhez kérjük, kattintson IDE.

Attention! This site is currently under continuous development, so some features may not be fully accessible or available yet.

Publication and Ethical Policies of the Human and Law Journal of Legal Studies
For Readers and Participants (authors, editors, reviewers, etc.)
Version: v0.1. Budapest, July 4, 2024
  1. Editorial Board
  2. Focus and Scope
  3. Review Process
  4. Publication Frequency
  5. Open Access
  6. Copyright
  7. Ethical Guidelines
  8. General Rules

Back to the Human and Law homepage

1. Editorial Board


Csaba Török, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Editorial Committee:

Krisztina Mária Fekete, Debrecen, Hungary

Róbert István Kasuba, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary

Márton Madocsai, Budapest, Hungary

Edina Mokánszki, Nyíregyháza, Hungary

2. Focus and Scope

The focus of Human and Law is on publishing new and original studies, research findings, and reports from a wide range of legal and political sciences. We are interested in all topics and findings related to legal issues in Hungary, the European Union, and worldwide. Submitted manuscripts can cover topics such as private law, criminal law, commercial law, administrative law, constitutional law, human rights, international law, environmental, natural and agricultural law, canon law, customary law, legal history, legal philosophy, legal sociology, procedural law, and other public law and social issues, their solutions, analysis, examination, and evaluation.

3. Review

Principles of Review

The journal only accepts manuscripts based on original research findings that are scientifically (professionally) substantiated – theoretically, methodologically, empirically, etc. Manuscripts that are under review elsewhere, have been published in another journal, or have been otherwise disseminated are not accepted or considered.

The editorial board of the journal examines every submitted manuscript against the journal’s specific formal and content requirements. Following this, to ensure compliance with the quality requirements of scientific value and nature, the manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process. This means that the manuscript is sent to at least two independent experts, ensuring that the reviewers do not know the author’s identity, and vice versa, during the review process. When selecting reviewers, the editorial board prioritizes ensuring that the reviewer is knowledgeable and an expert in the specific field and has no institutional or personal relationship with the author.

From the submission of the manuscript, throughout the review, and during the evaluation process, the author is required to cooperate. The author may also seek guidance from the editorial board via email ( on the suitability of the work before official submission.

For manuscripts not written in the author’s native language, it is advantageous and highly valued if the manuscript has undergone a native language review or if a specialized institution certifies the linguistic review during the evaluation process.

The review process

The review process consists of the following steps:

  1. Submission of Manuscript (by the author)
    The manuscript is submitted through our website by the author. The editor-in-chief forwards the submitted manuscript to an editor for further processing.
  2. Manuscript Check and Preliminary Review (by the editor)
    The editor examines the manuscript based on specified formal and content criteria. During this step, the manuscript is also checked for plagiarism using a plagiarism detection tool. The editor appoints at least two reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. However, the editorial board reserves the right to accept or reject the manuscript directly in exceptional cases during the preliminary review.
  3. Manuscript Review (by reviewers)
    The manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review.
  4. Notification of Acceptance or Rejection of the Manuscript (by the editor, based on reviewers’ comments)
    If the manuscript is accepted in its original form, steps 5-8 do not apply.
  5. Manuscript Revision (by the author, based on reviewers’ comments)
  6. Submission of Revised Manuscript (by the author)
  7. Review of Revised Manuscript (by the editor)
    The editor, involving the original reviewers, examines whether the author’s revisions meet the reviewers’ comments.
  8. Notification of Acceptance or Rejection of the Manuscript (by the editor)
  9. Editing and Publication

Review Outcome

The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the editor based on the reviewers’ reports, considering the scientific value of the work and its importance to the academic community and society, as well as to universal knowledge.

The possible decisions by the editorial board are:

  • Acceptance (in unchanged form)
  • Acceptance (with minor revisions)
  • Acceptance (with major revisions)
  • Rejection (conditional)
  • Rejection (final)


  • Accepted in unchanged form: The journal will publish the manuscript in its original form (as it is).
  • Accepted with minor revisions: The journal will publish the manuscript but will request the author to make minor revisions within a specified deadline.
  • Accepted with major revisions: The journal will publish the manuscript on the condition that the author makes the revisions suggested by the reviewers and/or the editorial board within a specified deadline.


  • Conditional rejection: ‘resubmission’. The journal rejects the manuscript in its current form but is willing to reconsider it in a new decision round if the author makes significant revisions and resubmits it.
  • Final rejection: The journal will not publish the manuscript and will not reconsider it even if the author makes significant changes.

Decision Mechanism

The editorial board makes decisions through the following mechanism:

In cases of fundamentally agreeing reviews

  • If both reviews are fundamentally in agreement (both acceptance or both rejection), the editor will decide on the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ opinions. In exceptionally justified cases or in case of suspicion of irregularities, the editor may choose to send the manuscript to a third reviewer for re-evaluation or refer the decision to the editorial board along with their recommendation, even if the initial reviews are unanimous.
  • If both reviews suggest minor revisions, or both suggest major revisions, the editor will request the author to revise the manuscript within a specified deadline based on the reviews.
  • If the reviews fundamentally agree (both acceptance) but one suggests minor revisions and the other suggests major revisions, the editor will proceed as if both reviews suggested major revisions.
  • The revised manuscript will be sent by the editor to the original two reviewers or, alongside them, to a third reviewer for re-evaluation.
  • If both reviews are fundamentally in agreement (both rejection), but one recommends conditional rejection while the other recommends final rejection, the editor will refer the decision to the editorial board.

In cases of fundamentally differing reviews

  • If the reviews differ (one acceptance, one rejection), the editor will either appoint a third reviewer for re-evaluation or refer the decision to the editorial board.

If the editor-in-chief disagrees with the editor’s decision, they may send it back to the editor for reconsideration, providing their opinion. The editor will then either change the decision or refer it to the editorial board.

The editorial board and the editor must provide a justification for their decisions, which includes the (anonymous) reviewers’ opinions.

There is no appeal against the editorial board’s decision.

4. Publication Frequency

Human and Law is published online biannually, two times a year in June and December by the Pro Veritate Association.

5. Open Access

Readers are provided full, unrestricted, immediate, and free access to all published issues of Human and Lap and the works therein under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This supports free and immediate access to research and findings, global knowledge exchange, and the rapid, efficient, and up-to-date cultivation of sciences. Therefore, readers have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the published works without modification.

Proper attribution to the authors is required during use.

Commercial use of the works is not permitted!

The works are licensed under: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

By submitting the manuscript, the author grants the journal the right to publish the manuscript for the first time.

The author is entitled to enter into a usage agreement with a third party regarding the work, but exclusive usage rights for the work already published in the journal cannot be transferred to another party.

The republication (secondary publication) of the work cannot occur without the unique, exceptionally justified prior consent of the Editorial Board.

7. Ethical Guidelines

Human and Law is a peer-reviewed e-journal. This Ethical Guidelines clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication and dissemination, including authors, the editor-in-chief, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

To maintain scientific integrity and professional standards, all participants are expected to adhere to the following norms of ethical conduct, aligned with the principles established by COPE:

Publication Ethics

The publisher is committed to responsible oversight at every stage of publication.

The publisher ensures that decisions of the editorial team are guided solely by scholarly and professional criteria, without influence from commercial considerations or financial gains.

Editorial Board

The Editorial Board comprises experts responsible for defining the professional direction and scientific objectives of Human and Law. They oversee the scholarly quality of works published in the journal through advice, professional guidance, and adherence to internal rules and procedures.

Members of the Editorial Board include the editor-in-chief, editors, and other professionally recognized contributors.


The editor-in-chief represents the editorial team and is accountable for maintaining the journal’s academic standards, organizing editorial workflows, and coordinating the work of editors.

The editor-in-chief also performs editorial duties as required.

The provisions applicable to the editor are to be applied to the editor-in-chief with the differences specified in the Publication and Ethical Policies and the appropriate adaptations where necessary.



The editor is responsible for maintaining communication with authors, reviewers, and evaluators, as well as deciding which submitted articles will be published. The editor acts based on their own conviction within the framework of the editorial policies, and is otherwise subject only to legal regulations. The editor may consult with the editor-in-chief, another editor, the editorial advisor, another collaborator, or a reviewer during the decision-making process.

Confidentiality and Trust

The editor and any collaborator of the editorial team must not disclose information related to the submitted manuscript to any third party, except to the manuscript’s author, reviewers, additional evaluators, the editor-in-chief, another editor, the editorial advisor, another collaborator, or the publisher. They are obliged to treat such information confidentially and keep it secure.

Publication and Conflicts of Interest

Any information or research results contained in a submitted manuscript that have not been published cannot be used in the editor’s own research without express written permission from the author.


General Obligations

During the review process, the reviewer is obligated to adhere to the COPE guidelines for reviewers.

If a reviewer feels they are unable to adequately assess or judge the topic or research presented in the manuscript, or if they know they cannot provide a timely review, they must promptly inform the editor about this fact.

Contributing to Editorial Decisions

The reviewer collaborates with the editorial team to assist the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions, thereby indirectly aiding the author in improving the manuscript. The reviewer is obligated to articulate their opinion clearly, factually, and logically, providing it to the editor.

Moreover, the reviewer must promptly notify the editor of any scholarly or ethical concerns regarding the author’s conduct if such concerns come to their attention.

Confidentiality and Trust

The reviewer must not disclose any information related to the submitted manuscript to any third party. They are obliged to handle and maintain the manuscript and its information confidentially and securely, using it only within the framework of the review process and as necessary.

Without explicit permission from the editor-in-chief, the manuscript cannot be shown to others, and the reviewer cannot discuss its contents with anyone else.


The reviewer must prepare their review impartially and without bias, adhering to general professional expectations. During the evaluation, the reviewer must not take into account any perceived or actual characteristics of the author.

Conflicts of Interest

The reviewer cannot evaluate a manuscript if they recognize the identity of the author or if the author’s identity is disclosed to them, or if they have any conflict of interest with the author, their institution, or organization related to the author or the manuscript.

If the reviewer cannot ensure impartiality, independence, or avoid conflict of interest regarding the manuscript for any reason, they must notify the editor, who, alongside informing the editor-in-chief, must bring this fact to the attention of the editor.

Source Verification

The reviewer must endeavor to identify any sources or literature that the author may have used but not cited. If identified, these sources must be provided to the editor along with the reviewer’s opinion.

The reviewer must also alert the editor to any sources personally known to them that show significant similarity or identity with the manuscript being evaluated.



The author significantly and actively participated in the creation of the work, as well as in the underlying research, activities, or data analysis that supported it.

An individual should also be considered an author (co-author) if they contributed significantly and actively to the preparation of the manuscript, the research underlying it, or the necessary data analysis.

Beyond the above, an author (co-author) has participated in preparing the manuscript, has seen its final version, and has given consent for its submission for publication, assuming full joint responsibility for all statements contained within the manuscript alongside other authors.

A person who participated substantially in the essential aspects of the research but did not fully meet the requirements of authorship (co-authorship) should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

Compliance with Formal and Content Requirements

The author must prepare their submitted manuscript in accordance with the prescribed formal and content rules.

Originality, Individual Character

By submitting the manuscript, the author declares that the work submitted is their own intellectual creation, based on their own activities and research, and that the work has not been previously published elsewhere, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere.

In the case of collaborative work, the submitting author must declare that they have obtained the contributions of all other authors for the submission of the manuscript and that these co-authors have provided them the above statements.

Intellectual Property Rights

The author guarantees that the submitted manuscript does not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others.

Source Attribution and Plagiarism Prohibition

If the author has used another person’s work or ideas in their manuscript, they are obliged to appropriately cite and quote them in accordance with the journal’s requirements and professional ethical standards.

The author must refrain from any form of plagiarism. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the manuscript if it shows 20% or more similarity with other works and raises suspicions of plagiarism.

The author must disclose all sources that directly funded the preparation of the publication.

Regarding research materials previously published elsewhere, the author must obtain permission from the copyright holder for their use.

Conflict of Interest

If a conflict of interest arises concerning the author, the author must, alongside notifying the editor-in-chief, draw the editor’s attention to this fact.

Correction, Rectification

The author must promptly inform the editor-in-chief of any inaccuracies discovered in their work. If any inaccuracies are found by the author or others, the author must cooperate in withdrawing the work or publishing the appropriate correction or rectification.

Irregularities, Abuses, Complaints

The journal strives to ensure the accuracy of information published through all available means and takes every possible action against violations of ethical standards, particularly plagiarism, fraud, and false authorship.

The Editorial Board investigates any potential abuses, brought to its attention, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the process charts issued by COPE.

If necessary, the journal takes all appropriate measures to clarify contentious situations, including modifying or retracting the affected publication. Corrections or rectifications are made public to ensure transparency, and in severe cases, the publication in question may be fully retracted.

Complaints against the Editor-in-Chief, editors, editorial board members, or contributors designated by the publisher are investigated by a committee appointed by the Pro Veritate Association’s Presidency.

Opinions and views expressed in publications in the journal reflect the views of the respective authors, which may not necessarily coincide with those of the Editorial Board of Human and Law or the publisher. The journal and the Editorial Board disclaim responsibility for any losses, claims, legal proceedings, costs, damages, or other liabilities arising directly or indirectly from the use of information and data published in the journal.

Fees, Costs

The journal does not charge any fees or costs for the publication of manuscripts.

7. General Rules

The current Publication and Ethical Policies have been prepared in both Hungarian and English versions, which are fully consistent with each other. In the event of any discrepancy or contradiction between the Hungarian and English versions, the Hungarian version shall prevail.

Regarding the current Publication and Ethical Policies and the legal relationship concerning the journal Human and Lax, Hungarian law shall apply.

In case of legal disputes related to the current Publication and Ethical Policies and the journal Human and Law, the judicial and non-judicial procedures under Hungarian law shall apply. If the parties do not settle their dispute amicably and through negotiation within 60 days, the Debrecen Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

Free counters!