About the Journal

Editorial Policy of “NeoKrísis”

1. Identity and mission

NeoKrísis (eISSN 3086-7126) is an academic journal affiliated with the NeoKrísis Research Group, dedicated to publishing studies in the fields of Political Theories and Legal Theories, with particular openness to research in Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Theory of the State, Democracy, Human Rights, Justice, Ethics, Constitutionalism, Peace, War, Sovereignty, Institutions, and related topics.

The journal’s mission is to promote critical, rigorous, and pluralistic reflection on the fundamental problems of contemporary political, legal, and institutional life, welcoming contributions that bring together the philosophical tradition, legal thought, social theory, and critical analysis of historical reality.

2. Scope

NeoKrísis publishes unpublished and original works that contribute to the development of scholarly debates related to the following fields:

  1. Political Theories.

  2. Legal Theories.

  3. Modern and contemporary Political Philosophy.

  4. Philosophy of Law.

  5. Theory of the State and Democracy.

  6. Human Rights and emerging rights.

  7. Justice, citizenship, and recognition.

  8. Peace, war, and international order.

  9. Sovereignty, constitutionalism, and institutions.

  10. Ethics, politics, and society.

  11. Relations among law, power, and legitimacy.

  12. Interdisciplinary studies related to the political-legal field.

The journal may publish articles, academic essays, reviews, translations, interviews, thematic dossiers, and documents of scholarly interest, as determined by the Editorial Board.

3. Publication frequency

NeoKrísis will have a semiannual publication schedule, with two issues published each year, corresponding to the periods January–June and July–December. The journal will adopt a continuous publication system, whereby each issue will open with the publication of the Masthead and the Editorial, and accepted works will be published progressively throughout the six-month period, following the completion of blind peer review, editorial review, formatting, and typesetting.

4. Commitment to academic quality

The journal is committed to publishing works that demonstrate scientific quality, originality, theoretical relevance, methodological rigor, argumentative clarity, and appropriate bibliographical support. The editorial decision will consider the manuscript’s effective contribution to the field of knowledge, its suitability for the journal’s scope, and the outcome of the peer review process.

5. Peer review

Articles submitted to NeoKrísis will first undergo a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board, which will verify:

  1. Suitability for the journal’s scope.

  2. Compliance with the submission guidelines.

  3. A minimum degree of originality in the proposal.

  4. The manuscript’s formal quality.

  5. The absence of information identifying the authorship in the submitted file, where applicable.

  6. Ethical and academic compliance.

Following the preliminary evaluation, manuscripts considered suitable will be forwarded to external reviewers or qualified members of the journal’s reviewer pool under a double-blind system. The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing recommend that journals clearly state whether their content undergoes peer review, who conducts the review, which review model is adopted, and which policies govern the process.

Works submitted to sections subject to peer review will be evaluated by at least two independent ad hoc reviewers with appropriate academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers will be selected by the responsible editors according to the relevance of their academic background and scholarly work to the manuscript’s subject, the absence of conflicts of interest, and the preservation of confidentiality. Whenever possible, reviewers will be selected from institutions other than those with which the authors are affiliated. The evaluation will follow a double-anonymous peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.

Reviewers may recommend: acceptance; acceptance subject to revisions; a new round of evaluation; or rejection. The final decision will be made by the responsible editor based on the reports received, the journal’s editorial policies, and the criteria of scientific quality and academic integrity. When the reviewers’ recommendations are substantially divergent, the manuscript may be referred to a third independent reviewer to support the editorial decision.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision within 15 calendar days of receiving the notification. The appeal must be submitted through the journal’s platform or sent to the journal’s editorial email address and must objectively explain the grounds for reconsideration. Whenever possible, the appeal will be examined by an editor who was not directly involved in the contested decision. Mere disagreement with the outcome, without academic justification or evidence of an error in the evaluation process, will not be sufficient for reconsideration. The decision on the appeal will be communicated to the authors and will be considered final within the journal.

The preliminary editorial screening will preferably be completed within 15 days. Under regular conditions, the first editorial decision is expected to be communicated within 90 days of submission. Following final acceptance, editorial preparation and continuous publication will preferably take place within 60 days. These timeframes are estimates and may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional evaluations, the time taken by authors to complete revisions, and the copyediting and production stages. Authors will be informed of any significant delays and may request the withdrawal of their manuscript without penalty.

Types of content that are not subject to peer review will be expressly identified in the relevant section and on the webpage of the published work.

6. Editorial decision

Based on the review reports received, the editorial team may decide on:

  1. Acceptance without changes.

  2. Acceptance with minor corrections.

  3. Acceptance subject to substantial revisions.

  4. A new round of evaluation following revision.

  5. Rejection.

The final decision will rest with the Editorial Board or the editor responsible for the manuscript, taking into account the review reports, the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s scope, and the current editorial policy.

7. Publication ethics

NeoKrísis will not accept practices that are incompatible with academic integrity, including:

  1. Plagiarism.

  2. Improper self-plagiarism.

  3. Fabrication or falsification of data.

  4. Manipulation of sources.

  5. Citation of nonexistent works.

  6. Misappropriation of ideas.

  7. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another journal.

  8. Improper inclusion of authors.

  9. Omission of authors who made substantial contributions to the work.

  10. Manipulation of the peer review process.

COPE emphasizes the need for clear procedures to address authorship, conflicts of interest, complaints, suspected misconduct, and ethical concerns both before and after publication.

8. Authorship and contribution

Authorship must be attributed only to individuals who have contributed substantially to the conception, development, writing, critical review, or final approval of the manuscript. All authors must be aware of and approve the submitted version. The inclusion of honorary authors, guest authors, or individuals who have made no effective contribution will be considered inappropriate. When there is more than one author, the journal may request a statement specifying each participant’s contribution.

9. Conflicts of interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any situations that may constitute a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest include those of a personal, academic, institutional, political, religious, financial, or professional nature that may interfere with the evaluation, editorial decision, or interpretation of the manuscript. When an editor has a conflict of interest involving a particular manuscript, they must refrain from participating in its handling and be replaced by another member of the editorial team.

10. Funding

Where applicable, authors must disclose the sources of funding, scholarships, grants, agreements, or institutional support related to the research. The absence of funding may also be declared where relevant.

11. Use of artificial intelligence

NeoKrísis permits the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence tools to support language editing, translation, textual organization, or technical data processing, provided that such use is disclosed whenever it has contributed significantly to the preparation of the manuscript. Artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume intellectual, ethical, or legal responsibility for the published content. Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, verifiability of sources, correctness of citations, and final content of the manuscript.

The following Statement is suggested where applicable:

Statement on the use of artificial intelligence: The authors declare that they used a generative artificial intelligence tool to support language editing, translation, or textual organization, while retaining full responsibility for verifying the information, ensuring the authenticity of the citations, and guaranteeing the originality and final content of the manuscript.

12. Plagiarism and originality screening

NeoKrísis may use textual similarity detection tools, as well as its own editorial assessment, to identify indications of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or inappropriate use of previously published texts. The identification of textual similarity does not automatically constitute plagiarism but will be assessed by the editorial team within its context, taking into account quotations, paraphrases, references, and the improper reuse of previous work.

13. Retraction, correction, and editorial statement

If significant errors are identified after publication, the journal may publish an erratum, correction, editorial note, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the seriousness of the case. A retraction may occur when plagiarism, misconduct, data fabrication, a serious error, or an ethical violation that compromises the academic validity of the published work has been proven.

14. Open access

NeoKrísis will adopt an open-access policy, ensuring that its content is freely available to readers in order to broaden the circulation of scholarly knowledge and foster informed public debate. The copyright and licensing policy must be defined and disclosed on the journal’s website, preferably with a clear indication of the license adopted.

15. Fees Policy

NeoKrísis – Journal of Political and Legal Theories does not charge fees for submission, evaluation, editorial processing, publication, or access to published works. No payment is required from authors at any stage of the editorial process.

16. Copyright

Authors will retain the copyright to their texts while granting NeoKrísis the right of first publication. Any subsequent reproduction, distribution, or use of the texts must comply with the license adopted by the journal and provide proper acknowledgment of the authorship, source, and details of the original publication.

17. Accepted languages

NeoKrísis may receive works in Portuguese, Spanish, English, Italian, or French, provided that the editorial guidelines and required standards of linguistic quality are observed. All articles must include a title, abstract, and keywords in Portuguese and English. When an article is written in another language, an abstract in the original language may also be required.

18. Thematic dossiers

The journal may organize thematic dossiers coordinated by guest editors, provided that they are approved by the Editorial Board. Manuscripts submitted to dossiers must follow the same evaluation, ethics, and quality standards applied to the journal’s other articles. Participation in a dossier does not exempt a manuscript from peer review.

19. Reviews, translations, and interviews

NeoKrísis may publish reviews of recent or classic works, annotated translations of relevant texts, and interviews with researchers recognized for their scholarly contributions. Translations must be accompanied by authorization, where necessary, and clear information about the edition used.

20. Authors’ responsibility

The ideas, interpretations, data, quotations, references, and opinions expressed in published texts are the sole responsibility of their authors. The publication of an article does not imply automatic agreement by NeoKrísis, the “NeoKrísis” Research Group, or its Editorial Board with the positions defended in the manuscript.

21. Editorial transparency

NeoKrísis is committed to making the following information publicly available on its website:

  1. The journal’s scope.

  2. Editorial team.

  3. Editorial and Scientific Boards.

  4. Submission guidelines.

  5. Peer review process.

  6. Ethics and academic integrity policy.

  7. Open-access policy.

  8. Publication frequency.

  9. Copyright and licensing.

  10. Institutional contact information.

The transparency of this information is recommended by international best-practice guidelines, which emphasize the importance of making editorial governance, review procedures, ethical policies, and conditions of access and publication publicly visible.

22. Final provision

Matters not covered herein will be reviewed by the Editorial Board of NeoKrísis, taking into account the journal’s scope, academic ethics, best practices in scholarly publishing, and the commitment to quality, pluralism, and rigor in intellectual production.