Guidelines for Authors

Submissions

The Romanian Construction Law Review welcomes original, previously unpublished contributions on construction law and related subjects: articles, case notes, commentary on legislation and book reviews. Contributions must be submitted in English.

To submit a manuscript or propose a topic, please contact us.

Manuscript requirements

• Page format: papers must be submitted in A4 format, with 2 cm margins (top, bottom, left and right).
• Title of the article: the TITLE should be written in capital letters, Times New Roman 12, bold, centred. Romanian authors should also provide the title in Romanian, placed under the English title.
• Author: the name of the author should be written in Times New Roman 12, aligned to the right, one line under the title, with the family name in capital letters. The symbol * should be added next to the family name as a footnote containing the author’s status, academic rank, scientific title and institution or workplace (for each author separately, using **, *** and so on).
• Abstract: maximum 300 words, written in Times New Roman 10, italics, justified, three lines under the author’s name.
• Keywords: 4–6 keywords capturing the essence of the article, listed in order of importance, written two lines under the abstract, in Times New Roman 10, italics, justified.
• The article: the body of the paper should be written in Times New Roman 12, justified, single line spacing; footnotes in Times New Roman 10. Articles should not exceed 12 standard pages. The paper should be divided into numbered chapters and paragraphs: chapter titles in Times New Roman 12, aligned left, bold, with one line space before the text; paragraph titles in Times New Roman 12, aligned left, italics, with one line space before the text. Both the text and the footnotes should use normal character formatting and, where required, italics only.
• Abbreviations: the following short forms are used in the text and in the footnotes: art. (article); para. (paragraph); p./pp. (page or pages); vol. (volume); GO (Government Ordinance); GD (Government Decision).
• Bibliography and footnotes: the bibliography should be placed at the end of the article, generated using Word instruments, with titles of cited works given in the original language (translation into English or French optional). Other cited materials (case law, legislation) should appear in footnotes only, numbered continuously throughout the paper, not restarting from 1 on each page.
• Figures and tables: numbered (e.g. Figure 1, Table 1) in Times New Roman 11, italics, placed between text lines, without text wrapping around them, with one line space above the figure/table and two line spaces beneath its title. The source must be indicated whenever the figure or table is not the author’s original work.

Please note that papers which do not comply with these guidelines will not be published.

Review and publication

All submissions are subject to a double-blind peer review process by a minimum of two reviewers. All contributions are initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles, and the Editor’s decision is final.

Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves, which have been written by family members or colleagues, or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.

The review criteria are the following:

• Relevance — the Review promotes the development and dissemination of theoretical knowledge, conceptual research and professional practice knowledge. While there are many related issues, papers on those issues should only be included if they have relevance to the research scope and topics.
• Originality — we place an emphasis on new work.
• Clarity and quality of English — even the best ideas provide little benefit if no one can understand them because of the way in which they are presented. We look for papers that are well organised and well written.
• References — papers show their value and their originality by grounding themselves in the literature. Ensure that the paper includes references appropriate for the kind of work: theoretical studies should have a larger reference list, while small case studies might only need references to their theoretical underpinnings and one or two related studies.
• Length of paper — scientific papers have particular limits and benefits. You should consider whether the ideas are appropriate for the length (8–12 pages).

Editor’s Duties

• Ethical standards: the Editorial Board ensures that the ethical standards of scientific publications are maintained and takes all reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including, among others, plagiarism, citation manipulation and data fabrication. Manuscripts submitted for publication are evaluated for accuracy, compliance with ethical standards and usefulness for science.
• Publication decisions: the Editorial Board decides, based on the abstracts submitted, which papers will be published in each issue, and may confer with the Scientific Council as part of the decision-making process. The Editorial Board is constrained by copyright infringement and plagiarism. After acceptance, the Editorial Board should not overturn its decision to publish unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
• Fair play: the Editorial Board evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. The decision to accept or reject a paper is based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the aim of the journal.
• Confidentiality: the Editorial Board, the Scientific Council and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript. Editors ensure that submitted material remains confidential while under review.
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the author’s consent. The Editorial Board and its decisions are completely independent from the Publisher.
• Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour: unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the Editorial Board and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the Editorial Board and publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. If plagiarism is found after publishing, the Editorial Board will contact the author for a response to the allegations. In cases of proven plagiarism or of no response or an inadequate response, the offending paper will be retracted and a statement from the publisher will be inserted in its place in the relevant journal issue.

Reviewer’s Duties

• Contribution to editorial improvements: recommendations made by peer reviewers are transmitted by the editorial staff to the authors, with the aim of improving the manuscripts.
• Promptness: a reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research in a manuscript, or who knows that a prompt review will not be possible, should notify the editorial staff and the Editorial Board and withdraw from the review process.
• Confidentiality: reviewers must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript. Editors and reviewers ensure that submitted material remains confidential while under review.
• Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.
• Acknowledgement of sources and identification of possible plagiarism: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Statements, observations or arguments previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. A reviewer should also call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the author’s consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer-review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.

Author’s Duties

• Originality and plagiarism: authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and that, where the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors found to have plagiarised material will be withdrawn from publication consideration. If plagiarism is found after publishing, the Editorial Board will contact the author for a response to the allegations; in cases of proven plagiarism or of no response or an inadequate response, the offending paper will be retracted and a statement from the publisher will be inserted in its place in the relevant journal issue. Ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific misconduct and any detected cases will be revealed, including notification of the entities concerned; such cases will be documented by the Editors.
• Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour.
• Acknowledgement of sources: proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
• Authorship of the paper: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study, and all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantial aspects of the research project should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors — and no inappropriate co-authors — are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or the interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
• Fundamental errors in published work: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editorial Board and to work with the editorial team to correct or retract the paper.

Where any scientific misconduct is detected, the Editorial Board will apply the guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).