About the Journal

§1. Aims and scope

Ars æqui is a peer-reviewed academic journal of the Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Ovidius University of Constanța, Romania. It seeks to publish original, high-quality contributions from scholars and practitioners addressing contemporary issues of legal doctrine and practice, as well as case law commentaries and book reviews.

As the borders between law and other social sciences become ever more translucent, legal research can no longer be conceived from purely positivistic standpoints. Acknowledging this imperative, our journal invites methodological approaches which go beyond the mere exegesis of positive law, including but not limited to natural law, legal history, comparative law, and law in context, examining the law in any of its multiple dimensions – social, economic, cultural, and so on. Our journal also encourages interdisciplinary contributions that explore the interaction between law and related fields such as public administration, political science, economics, and sociology. In this way, Ars æqui seeks a deeper understanding of how law and governance shape and are shaped by society in the legal systems of Romania, Central and Eastern Europe, and beyond.

 

ISSN

1842-1059

ISSN-L

1842-1059

Frequency

biannual (since 2025), formerly annual (2011-2024)

Language

English (all sections), Romanian (commentaries and book reviews)

Publication type

academic journal

Target readership

scholars, practitioners, and students

Indexing

CEEOL, EBSCO, Index Copernicus

Website

revista.drept-ovidius.ro

 

§2. Journal structure

  1. Editorial (if/when needed)
  2. Studies (theoretical analyses, thoroughly footed in literature and case law, reflective of current levels of knowledge, making an original scientific contribution) and Articles (theoretical and/or practical analyses, footed in literature and case law, reflecting the current level of knowledge, which aim to make an original contribution)
  3. Commentaries (case notes and/or policy briefs)
  4. Book reviews.

 

§3. Submissions

Submissions may be made online through the dedicated platform available at revista.drept-ovidius.ro. Publication is conditional on full compliance with the author guidelines and publication ethics, as well as securing a favourable result in the peer review process. Our journal does not charge author fees.

Submissions of studies and articles ought to be original and not published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Additionally, no author will have more than one submission published per issue.

 

§4. Peer review process (Last revision: 5 September 2025)

Studies and articles shall be peer reviewed through an anonymized (double-blind) process. All original research submissions shall be assessed by two reviewers – reputed specialists in relevant fields – with the aim of providing the editors with recommendations.

As a double-blind peer review process, one side shall not know the identity of the other (authors will not be privy to the identity of the reviewers, and vice versa). Furthermore, reviewers will not be asked to assess submissions authored by a person with the same institutional affiliation.

There is no deadline for submitting papers; our team welcomes submissions on a rolling basis. Please note that the review process usually takes approximately two months. If there is no space left in the current issue, a submission may be accepted for the following issue. Furthermore, the journal will not consider more than one submission from the same author per issue, including but not limited to cases of co-authorship.

Reviewers must assess every submission on the following criteria:

  1. Scope and aims of the journal;
  2. Author guidelines (e.g., the sources consulted by the author are appropriately referenced; the title, abstract and keywords correspond with the main text);
  3. Language accuracy and scientifically sound methodology;
  4. Originality of the contribution;
  5. Relevance and novelty of the topic and its cited sources.

Having assessed these criteria, each peer reviewer shall recommend an editorial decision and provide the author with suggestions or observations. While reviewers may recommend acceptance or rejection, our journal reserves the right to reject papers that do not match its scope or meet the standards outlined in the author guidelines and publication ethics policies. If reviewers differ considerably in their assessments and/or recommendations, the managing editor may request further evaluation from a third reviewer.

In respect of editorial decisions, there are four possible outcomes:

  • Accepted without revisions;
  • Accepted with minor revisions;
  • Accepted with major revisions;
  • Rejection.

 

§5. Policies on publication ethics

Ars æqui adheres to COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (available here). Our policies are detailed below.

1. Authorship and contributorship

Authorship of papers published in this journal is recognized to anyone who fulfils the following criteria:

(1) having made a substantial contribution to the work;

(2) accepting legal and moral accountability for the respective work and its publication.

Contributions falling short of these criteria may be credited in the Acknowledgements (in a footnote at the very beginning of the paper). Such is the case of mentors or scientific supervisors, as well as those who have facilitated access to resources or made comments on previous drafts of the paper.

2. Handling allegations of research misconduct

This journal treats allegations of research misconduct (including plagiarism, citation manipulation etc.) very seriously, both pre-publication and post-publication. While balancing transparency and confidentiality is not simple, our journal is committed to support complainants who bring forward their legitimate concerns, as well as providing a fair process and due support to the corresponding respondents. At all stages, the parties are reminded that the allegation is yet unproven, is being addressed under this procedure and all information relating to it remains confidential. The procedure, detailed below, is based on the template provided by the UK Research Integrity Office (available here):

Stage 1

Receipt of allegations

Stage 1: The journal manager will assess whether the matter:

(a)    falls under the scope of this procedure and should advance to the next stage,

(b)    falls under the scope of a different procedure, warranting referral to another body, including (but not limited to) external organisations,

(c)     is the result of poor practice rather than misconduct, requiring informal measures,

(d)    should be dismissed as neither under the remit of this procedure, nor to be referred to any other body.

The journal manager may seek confidential advice from experts both within and outside the journal team and/or publisher. This step should be completed within 10 working days from the moment of receipt.

Stage 2

Preliminary investigation

Stage 2: The journal manager shall appoint a team of two investigators with relevant expertise and no conflict of interests, for the purpose of establishing whether there is a prima facie case of research misconduct. The team should:

(a)    interview the complainant and respondent,

(b)    review all evidence, and

(c)     decide whether or not the case should move to the formal investigation stage.

This step should be completed within 30 working days from its commencement.

Stage 3

Formal investigation

Stage 3: The journal manager shall appoint a committee of three investigators (including at least one external) with relevant expertise, no conflict of interest and no previous involvement in the case. The committee will conduct a full review so as to establish whether there is a research misconduct, and suggest adequate remedies for consideration by the relevant institutional body (university, journal team or publisher).

3. Policies on conflicts of interest

There is conflict of interest when a participant in the publication process (i.e., author, peer reviewer or editor) has a competing interest that may unduly influence (or be reasonably considered to do so) his or her responsibilities. Examples of competing interests may include financial ties (a), academic commitments (b), personal relationships (c), political or religious beliefs (d), as well as institutional affiliations (e).

Onus of disclosure

All authors are required to disclose any conflict of interest before peer-review. Insofar as competing interests exist, the disclosure will be published alongside the submission.

Failure to disclose

If conflict allegations appear during the peer review process, the journal shall contact the author and request clarification. If such a conflict is found to exist, then the author must provide a signed statement before peer review can continue. If no such conflict exists, then peer review may continue.

If conflict allegations surface after publication, the journal shall contact the author and request clarification. There are three possible outcomes:

(a)    the publication stands (if no conflict can be found),

(b)    the publication is corrected (with the omitted disclosure, if appropriate), or

(c)     the publication is retracted (for unduly affecting the publication process).

4. Publishing license and intellectual property

Ars Aequi will convert to an open access publishing model. Original research articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (available here), which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided appropriate credit is given. For any material not covered by this license, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder.

The editorial board will only consider submissions which have not already been published in a scientific journal. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, will be dealt with in accordance with COPE guidelines.

5. Generative AI policy

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in academic writing and research is rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly accessible to authors across disciplines. Ars Aequi recognizes the potential of these tools to support manuscript preparation, improve language clarity, and assist with content organization.

Modelled after the Elsevier Generative AI policy for journals, our policy has been developed to provide clear guidance and transparency for authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. It outlines the responsible use of AI tools while ensuring that critical legal analysis, scholarly judgment, and intellectual responsibility remain with human contributors.

Our policy adheres to the principles of transparency, accountability, confidentiality, and human oversight:

  • AI use must be expressly disclosed.
  • Authors, reviewers, and editors are responsible for their work.
  • No manuscripts, reviews, or editorial materials may be uploaded to AI tools outside the journal system.
  • AI cannot replace human critical analysis, legal reasoning, or scholarly judgment.

Authors:

  • AI tools may be used for language editing, summarizing content, or organizing text, but cannot replace critical thinking or legal analysis.
  • Any AI use must be disclosed in a statement in the manuscript (e.g., “The authors used [AI Tool name] for language editing. All intellectual content, analysis, and conclusions remain the authors’ own work.”)
  • AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author.
  • AI-generated figures, images, or artwork are not allowed, except when part of the research method (must be described in the Methods section).
  • Authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, and compliance with copyright and data privacy.

Reviewers:

  • Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or review reports into AI tools.
  • Assessment must remain human-led; AI cannot generate reviews or evaluate scholarly content.
  • Reviewers are accountable for the content and quality of their reports but are not responsible for detecting AI misuse.

Editors:

  • Editors must not upload manuscripts or editorial correspondence into AI tools.
  • AI tools may be used internally (e.g., plagiarism detection, reviewer assignment) but must respect confidentiality and data privacy.
  • Editorial evaluation and decision-making rely solely on human judgment.

Ars Aequi will continue to monitor developments in generative AI and related technologies and will update this policy as best practices evolve.

6. Post-publication policies

Our journal allows post-publication debate through letters to the editor, publishable after peer review in a subsequent issue, inviting a possible Reply from the original author.

The journal shall issue corrections, revisions or retractions as applicable:

  • Author or publisher corrections are issued to address important error(s) made by the author(s), to maintain the scientific integrity of the article or reputation of the author(s) or the journal.
  • An Editor’s note shall be issued whenever the journal has initiated an inquiry in response to concerns raised about a published work.
  • Retractions are issued when publication or research ethics are violated and/or the scientific integrity of the publication has been grossly undermined. The publication will be marked as ‘retracted’, yet the original PDF will generally continue to be available to readers.
  • Removals may be issued when (1) a court or government order requiring the removal of such content has been issued or is likely to be issued, (2) the content poses a serious and immediate risk to health, if acted upon, and (3) the Editor has been advised that the content is unlawful (e.g., when it infringes intellectual property or is defamatory).