Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to preventing publication malpractice. The Journal expects authors, editors, reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, and the publisher to act with integrity, professionalism, fairness, and transparency throughout the publication process.

The Journal publishes scholarly work in the fields of law, political science, and related social sciences. Editorial decisions are made on the basis of academic quality, originality, relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal, clarity of argumentation, and compliance with ethical and professional standards.

1. Editorial responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief, the Editor, and the Editorial Board are responsible for ensuring a fair, impartial, and confidential editorial process. Manuscripts are assessed exclusively on academic merit and relevance, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, political opinion, religion, or personal characteristics of the author.

The editors reserve the right to reject submissions that do not meet the academic, editorial, or ethical standards of the Journal.

The Journal is committed to editorial independence. Editorial decisions concerning acceptance, revision, rejection, correction, or retraction are made solely on scholarly and ethical grounds.

2. Peer review

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to peer review before publication. The type and basic stages of the peer review procedure are publicly described by the Journal and are applied consistently to all submissions. Reviewers are selected on the basis of academic expertise and are expected to provide objective, reasoned, and constructive evaluations.

Reviewers must:

• treat manuscripts as confidential documents;
• not use or disclose unpublished material for personal or professional advantage;
• declare any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality;
• decline review if they are unable to provide an independent assessment.

The Journal seeks to ensure that peer review is conducted fairly, independently, and in accordance with the principles of scholarly integrity.

3. Duties of authors

By submitting a manuscript to the Journal, authors confirm that:

• the submission is original and has not been published previously in the same form;
• the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal or publisher at the same time;
• all sources, quotations, and references have been properly acknowledged;
• all listed authors have made a genuine scholarly contribution to the work;
• all authors have approved the final version of the manuscript;
• no person entitled to authorship has been omitted;
• the manuscript does not contain plagiarized, fabricated, falsified, or misleading material;
• any financial support or relevant conflict of interest has been disclosed;
• all authors provide their valid ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) identifier upon submission to ensure transparent scholarly identity.

Authors are fully responsible for the content of their work, including the accuracy of citations, references, legal authorities, translations, and factual statements. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that their metadata, including their ORCID profile, is accurate and up to date.

4. Authorship

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual contribution to the manuscript. Gift authorship, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship are unacceptable.

All listed authors must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the manuscript and must approve its final version prior to submission or publication.

Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be justified in writing and may be accepted only with the consent of all listed authors and the approval of the editors.

5. Plagiarism and other misconduct

The Journal does not tolerate:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism without appropriate disclosure;
• duplicate, redundant, or fragmented publication of substantially the same research without proper justification and disclosure;
• fabricated or falsified data or sources;
• manipulated citations;
• false authorship claims;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• any other form of research or publication misconduct.

Where misconduct is suspected, the Journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, or institutional review. If serious concerns are confirmed, the Journal may reject the manuscript or take post-publication action.

6. Conference-related and institutionally affiliated submissions

The Journal may publish papers related to conferences, seminars, and workshops. Such submissions are subject to the same editorial, peer review, and ethical standards as all other manuscripts.

Institutional affiliation with Széchenyi István University, the Faculty, the editorial office, or the Editorial Board does not provide any advantage in the editorial process. Submissions by editors, board members, or closely affiliated authors must be handled with particular care to ensure independent editorial assessment and the proper management of conflicts of interest.

Where a submission is authored by an editor, Editorial Board member, or another person closely connected to the editorial process, the manuscript must be handled independently and without the involvement of the affected person in the editorial decision-making process.

7. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished material.

Confidential information obtained through the submission, review, or editorial process must not be disclosed or used for personal, institutional, or professional advantage.

8. Corrections and retractions

Where necessary, the Journal will publish corrections, retractions, or editorial expressions of concern in order to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. The Journal may take corrective action where significant errors, misleading statements, or ethical concerns are identified before or after publication.

9. Complaints and appeals

Complaints relating to editorial procedures, peer review, or publication ethics may be submitted to the editorial office in writing. The Journal will examine such complaints fairly, proportionately, and confidentially.

Where concerns of publication misconduct arise, the Journal will assess the matter in a fair, proportionate, and confidential manner. The editors may request clarification from the author or authors, seek further documentation, consult reviewers or Editorial Board members, and, where appropriate, contact the relevant institution.

Reasoned appeals against editorial decisions may also be submitted. The editors reserve the right to consult members of the Editorial Board or external experts in the course of examining complaints or appeals.

10. Publisher’s role

The publisher supports the independence of the editorial process and the maintenance of academic and ethical standards. The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions concerning acceptance, rejection, correction, or retraction.

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, and transparent peer review process as an essential safeguard of academic quality, scholarly integrity, and editorial responsibility.

The Journal applies peer review to all manuscripts submitted for publication. Peer review is intended to support editorial decision-making, improve the scholarly quality of submissions, and ensure that published articles meet appropriate academic and ethical standards.

1. General principles

All manuscripts are assessed on the basis of their academic merit, originality, relevance to the scope of the Journal, clarity of argumentation, methodological soundness where relevant, and conformity with the Journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

The Journal seeks to ensure that peer review is conducted in a fair, objective, timely, and confidential manner.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, political opinion, religion, seniority, or personal characteristics of the author.

2. Initial editorial assessment

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it is subject to an initial editorial assessment.

At this stage, the editors may consider, among other things:

• whether the submission falls within the aims and scope of the Journal;
• whether the manuscript meets basic scholarly, linguistic, and formal requirements;
• whether the submission appears suitable for peer review;
• whether there are any evident ethical concerns or conflicts of interest requiring attention before review.

The editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript without external peer review if it is clearly outside the Journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or editorial requirements, or raises serious ethical concerns.

3. Peer review model

The Journal applies a peer review process conducted by independent expert reviewers.

The specific review arrangement used by the Journal is intended to ensure impartial scholarly assessment and editorial independence.

The Journal operates under a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Authors and reviewers are expected to respect and maintain the confidentiality requirements of this process by ensuring that manuscripts are anonymized prior to submission and review.

4. Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, scholarly competence, and suitability in relation to the subject matter of the manuscript.

The Journal seeks, where reasonably possible, to appoint reviewers who are capable of providing an independent and informed assessment and who are not affected by personal, professional, or institutional conflicts of interest.

The Journal may take into account the need for institutional and scholarly diversity in the selection of reviewers.

The editors are not bound by author suggestions regarding reviewers and retain full discretion in reviewer selection.

5. Duties of reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• treat manuscripts as confidential documents;
• review the manuscript objectively, fairly, and constructively;
• provide clear and reasoned comments that support the editorial decision;
• identify relevant scholarly concerns, including weaknesses in argumentation, structure, methodology, citation practice, or originality;
• alert the editors to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other ethical concern;
• decline the review if they do not have sufficient expertise, cannot provide an independent assessment, or cannot complete the review within a reasonable time.

Reviewers must not use, disclose, or exploit unpublished material contained in the manuscript for personal, professional, or institutional advantage.

6. Confidentiality of the review process

The peer review process is confidential.

Manuscripts under review, reviewer identities where protected, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related unpublished materials must not be disclosed outside the editorial process, except where disclosure is required for legitimate editorial or institutional purposes.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or review-related materials to public, non-secure, or confidentiality-compromising AI systems or other third-party platforms.

7. Conflicts of interest in peer review

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could impair, or reasonably appear to impair, their impartiality.

A conflict of interest may arise, for example, from:

• recent collaboration with the author;
• shared institutional affiliation;
• close personal or professional relationships;
• academic rivalry;
• financial, political, or ideological interests directly related to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Where such a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the review or notify the editors immediately.

Editors must also avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose independence may reasonably be questioned.

8. Editorial handling of special cases

Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, or authors closely connected to the editorial process must be handled with particular care.

In such cases, the manuscript must be managed independently and without the involvement of the affected person in reviewer selection, editorial assessment, or final decision-making.

The Journal is committed to ensuring that submissions from the host institution are subject to the same independent review and editorial standards as all other submissions.

9. Editorial decisions

Editorial decisions are made by the responsible editors on the basis of the reviewer reports, the editors’ own academic judgment, and the Journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

Possible editorial decisions may include:

• acceptance;
• acceptance subject to revisions;
• invitation to revise and resubmit;
• rejection.

The editors are not bound automatically by reviewer recommendations, but they will take them seriously into account.

Final responsibility for the editorial decision rests with the editors, not with the reviewers.

10. Revisions

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewer comments carefully and in good faith.

The revised manuscript may, where appropriate, be returned to one or more reviewers for further assessment.

The editors may request a point-by-point response to reviewer comments where necessary.

11. Timeliness and professional conduct

The Journal seeks to conduct peer review within a reasonable timeframe consistent with scholarly quality and editorial care.

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to invitations and, if they accept, to submit their reports within the requested timeframe or notify the editors if delay becomes unavoidable.

The Journal recognizes that timeliness is an important aspect of fair editorial treatment, but it does not compromise reviewer independence or scholarly rigor for speed.

12. Integrity of the peer review process

The Journal does not tolerate manipulation of the peer review process.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• false reviewer identities;
• fabricated reviewer reports;
• undisclosed reviewer conflicts of interest;
• improper attempts to influence editorial outcomes;
• misuse of confidential information obtained through review.

Any suspected abuse of the peer review process may result in editorial action, including rejection of the manuscript, withdrawal of review invitations, notification of relevant institutions, or other appropriate measures.

13. Relationship to other editorial policies

This Peer Review Policy should be read together with the Journal’s:

• Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement;
• Generative AI Policy;
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy;
• Corrections, Retractions and Editorial Expressions of Concern Policy;
• Statements and Declarations.

The Journal may revise this policy from time to time in order to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards, editorial practice, and academic integrity requirements.

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia recognizes that generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies may be used in academic work. At the same time, such tools raise important questions concerning authorship, accountability, accuracy, confidentiality, bias, and academic integrity.

The Journal therefore permits only responsible, limited, and transparent use of AI-assisted technologies in connection with manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial work.

1. General principle

Authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to, reviewed by, or published in the Journal. The use of AI tools does not transfer responsibility for the accuracy, originality, legality, or integrity of the content.

AI tools cannot be considered authors, co-authors, reviewers, or editors.

2. Use of AI by authors

Authors may use AI-assisted tools for limited purposes such as:

• language editing;
• grammar correction;
• improvement of style or readability;
• formatting assistance;
• organization of author-generated material.

Authors must not rely on AI tools as a substitute for scholarly judgment, legal analysis, source verification, or academic responsibility.

Authors must carefully review and verify all AI-assisted output before submission. They are solely responsible for all statements, citations, references, quotations, translations, and interpretations included in the manuscript.

The Journal distinguishes between (a) the use of AI-assisted tools for limited linguistic or editorial support and (b) the use of AI tools in a manner that materially affects the content, analysis, methodology, or research process of the manuscript.

The use of AI solely for language polishing, grammar correction, or stylistic improvement may be permissible without detailed methodological explanation, provided that the intellectual content of the manuscript remains entirely under the control and responsibility of the author or authors.

Where AI tools are used in a manner that affects the substance of the research or manuscript preparation – including analytical, interpretative, classificatory, or methodological functions – such use must be disclosed clearly and specifically.

3. Disclosure requirement

If AI-assisted tools were used in the preparation of the manuscript, the authors must disclose this upon submission.

The disclosure should state:

• the name of the tool;
• the purpose of the use;
• the extent of the use;
• the part of the manuscript affected, where relevant.

A suitable disclosure statement is:

“The authors used [name of tool] for [language editing / grammar correction / formatting / organizational assistance]. All output was reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.”

Where AI-assisted tools were used for research-related, analytical, or methodological purposes, the disclosure should also explain the nature of that use and the extent of human oversight applied by the author or authors.

Where relevant, such use should be described not only upon submission but also in the manuscript itself, in an appropriate section such as the methodology, acknowledgements, or declarations.

4. Prohibited uses

The following uses are not acceptable:

• listing an AI tool as an author or co-author;
• submitting AI-generated legal, scientific, or scholarly analysis without full human verification;
• using AI-generated citations, authorities, or references without checking their existence and accuracy;
• using AI to fabricate data, sources, quotations, case references, or bibliographic entries;
• using AI in any manner that violates confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or applicable law.

The use of AI tools to generate substantive scholarly argumentation, legal reasoning, or academic conclusions without full and independent human intellectual control is prohibited.

The Journal does not permit the use of AI in any manner that obscures responsibility for the content of the manuscript or misleads editors, reviewers, or readers as to the origin of the text or analysis.

5. Use of AI by reviewers

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, or related confidential editorial materials to public or non-secure AI systems.

Peer review must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgment. AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly assessment.

Reviewers must not use AI-assisted tools in any way that compromises confidentiality, data protection, or the independence of the peer review process.

Any use of AI by reviewers that would involve the transfer of manuscript content to an external system is prohibited unless the Journal has explicitly authorized such use under secure and confidential conditions.

6. Use of AI by editors

Editors may use AI-assisted tools only for limited administrative or language-support purposes, provided that confidentiality, data protection, and editorial independence are fully preserved.

Final editorial decisions must always be made by human editors.

Editors must not use AI-assisted tools in a manner that would disclose confidential manuscript content to unauthorized third parties or undermine the integrity of editorial decision-making.

Any limited editorial use of AI must remain subordinate to human scholarly judgment and must not replace independent editorial assessment.

7. Editorial action in case of misuse

If undisclosed or inappropriate AI use is identified or suspected, the Journal may request clarification, correction, revision, or additional disclosure. In serious cases, the Journal may reject the submission or take post-publication action.

Failure to disclose material AI use, or the use of AI in a misleading, academically inappropriate, or confidentiality-compromising manner, may be treated as a matter of editorial or publication misconduct.

8. Review of the policy

As AI technologies and publishing standards continue to develop, the Journal reserves the right to revise this policy at any time.

This policy shall be interpreted in light of the Journal’s broader editorial, ethical, and confidentiality standards.

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is committed to ensuring transparency and trust in scholarly publishing. All participants in the publication process must disclose any conflict of interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.

A conflict of interest may be financial, institutional, professional, academic, political, or personal in nature.

1. Authors

Authors must disclose any relevant conflict of interest at the time of submission. This includes, but is not limited to:

• research funding;
• employment or institutional interests;
• consultancy or advisory roles;
• personal or professional relationships;
• ideological, political, or advocacy commitments directly related to the subject of the manuscript.

Where no conflict exists, authors should state:

“The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.”

If a conflict exists, it must be described clearly and specifically.

Authors must also disclose any financial support, grant support, institutional funding, or other material assistance relevant to the preparation of the manuscript.

The Journal expects authors to provide a clear and explicit statement even where no competing interests or no funding exist.

2. Reviewers

Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where a conflict of interest may impair their impartiality. This includes cases involving:

• recent collaboration with the author;
• shared institutional affiliation;
• personal or professional rivalry;
• direct academic, political, or financial interest in the outcome.

If a potential conflict exists, the reviewer must inform the editors immediately.

Reviewers must not accept an invitation to review where their independence or objectivity could reasonably be questioned.

3. Editors

Editors must withdraw from the editorial handling of any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest. In such cases, the manuscript must be reassigned to another editor or handled under alternative independent editorial oversight.

This applies in particular where the manuscript is submitted by:

• an editor of the Journal;
• a member of the Editorial Board;
• a close colleague from the same department or institution;
• a person with whom the editor has a close personal or professional relationship.

Editors must not participate in the editorial assessment, reviewer selection, or decision-making process in relation to manuscripts in which they have a relevant conflict of interest.

4. Institutional proximity

Because the Journal is affiliated with Széchenyi István University, special care must be taken in handling submissions from authors associated with the host institution. Such manuscripts must be assessed according to the same standards as all other submissions, and any potential conflicts must be managed transparently and appropriately.

The Journal is committed to ensuring that institutional affiliation with the host institution does not create actual or perceived preferential treatment in editorial decision-making.

5. Publication of disclosures

The editors may publish relevant conflict of interest disclosures alongside the article where appropriate.

Where relevant, disclosures concerning conflicts of interest and funding may be published as part of a dedicated declarations section in the final published article.

6. Statements and declarations

The Journal may require authors to provide conflict of interest and funding information in a structured “Statements and Declarations” section of the manuscript.

This section may include, where applicable, statements concerning funding, competing interests, author responsibilities, and other relevant disclosures.

7. Failure to disclose

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may result in editorial action, including rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, or other appropriate measures.

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is committed to preserving the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. Where significant problems are identified in a published article, the Journal may issue a correction, retraction, or editorial expression of concern, depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter.

1. Errata

An erratum may be issued where a published article contains minor typographical, bibliographical, formatting, or production-related errors that do not affect the substance, interpretation, or reliability of the article.

Errata are intended to correct minor inaccuracies while preserving the original scholarly record.

2. Corrections

A correction may be issued where:

• a published article contains a significant factual or bibliographic error;
• an author name, affiliation, or funding acknowledgement requires amendment;
• a part of the text is inaccurate but the overall findings or arguments remain valid;
• an error occurred during editorial production or publication.

Corrections will be clearly identified and linked to the original article.

Corrections are appropriate where the published article remains substantially reliable, but clarification or amendment is necessary in order to ensure accuracy and transparency.

3. Retractions

A retraction may be issued where:

• the article contains serious errors that render its conclusions unreliable;
• plagiarism or duplicate publication is identified;
• fabricated, falsified, or misleading content is discovered;
• there is serious ethical misconduct;
• the article has been published in violation of legal or ethical requirements.

Retraction notices will remain part of the scholarly record and will identify the reason for retraction in a clear and transparent manner.

Retraction is reserved for cases in which the article can no longer be regarded as a reliable part of the scholarly record.

A retracted article will not ordinarily be removed from the Journal’s record or website, except in exceptional legal or ethical circumstances. Instead, it will remain accessible with a clear indication that it has been retracted.

4. Editorial expressions of concern

An editorial expression of concern may be issued where:

• serious concerns have been raised about a publication;
• an investigation is ongoing;
• available information is inconclusive;
• immediate clarification for readers is considered necessary.

An expression of concern may later be followed by a correction, retraction, or closure of the matter.

An editorial expression of concern is intended as an interim measure where potentially serious issues exist, but the available evidence does not yet justify a final editorial action.

5. Initiation of review

A review leading to correction, retraction, or expression of concern may be initiated by:

• authors;
• editors;
• reviewers;
• readers;
• institutions;
• other credible third parties.

The Journal will examine such concerns carefully, fairly, and confidentially.

6. Procedure

Before taking formal action, the Journal may:

• contact the author or authors for explanation;
• request evidence or clarification;
• consult reviewers, Editorial Board members, or external experts;
• contact the relevant institution where appropriate.

The Journal will seek to ensure procedural fairness while protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

The Journal will ordinarily seek to give the author or authors an opportunity to respond before a final editorial decision is made, unless immediate action is required by legal, ethical, or integrity considerations.

7. Distinction between honest error and misconduct

In assessing whether an erratum, correction, retraction, or expression of concern is appropriate, the Journal may distinguish between good-faith error and research or publication misconduct.

Where possible, notices will avoid unnecessary stigmatization while ensuring that readers are properly informed of the nature and seriousness of the issue.

8. Linking and transparency

All errata, corrections, retractions, and editorial expressions of concern will be clearly identified and linked to the original publication.

Where technically possible, the metadata and online record of the original publication will be updated so as to reflect the article’s corrected or retracted status.

9. Minor errors

Minor typographical, formatting, or stylistic errors that do not affect the meaning, interpretation, or scholarly reliability of the article do not normally require a formal correction notice.

10. Post-publication responsibility

Authors are expected to inform the Journal promptly if they discover a significant error in their published work. Editors may also take action independently where justified by the available evidence.

The Journal regards post-publication correction as an integral part of responsible scholarly publishing and of the maintenance of trust in the academic record.

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is committed to transparency, academic integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing. In order to support these principles, authors may be required to include a dedicated Statements and Declarations section in their manuscript.  Furthermore, this policy defines the open access status, copyright ownership, and licensing terms under which all work in the Journal is published.

This section should normally appear before the reference list and should contain the declarations relevant to the submitted manuscript. Where a particular declaration is not applicable, the authors should state this clearly.

1. General principle

The purpose of the Statements and Declarations section is to ensure that readers, reviewers, and editors are informed of any circumstances that may affect the interpretation, reliability, transparency, or ethical assessment of the manuscript.

The Journal expects authors to provide complete, accurate, and honest declarations.

2. Funding

Authors should disclose any financial support, grant funding, institutional support, or other material assistance received in connection with the research or preparation of the manuscript.

Where no such support exists, authors should state:

“The authors received no financial or institutional support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.”

Where funding exists, authors should identify the relevant funder, grant number where applicable, and any other relevant information.

3. Conflict of interest

Authors must disclose any conflict of interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the content, interpretation, or publication of the manuscript.

Where no conflict exists, authors should state:

“The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.”

Where a conflict exists, it must be described clearly and specifically.

4. Author contributions

Where relevant, especially in the case of co-authored manuscripts, authors are encouraged to provide a brief statement describing their respective scholarly contributions.

Such statements may describe, for example, contributions to the conception of the study, research design, analysis, drafting of the manuscript, revision of the text, or final approval.

A suitable statement may read:

“All authors contributed to the study conception and design. [Name] prepared the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

The Journal may request further clarification where authorship or contributorship requires explanation.

5. Data availability

Where the manuscript is based on empirical materials, datasets, coded materials, or other research data, authors should indicate whether such materials are available and, if so, under what conditions.

Where data are publicly available, authors should provide the relevant link, repository reference, or other access information.

Where data are not publicly available, authors should explain the reason, such as confidentiality, legal restrictions, privacy, or the nature of the research materials.

Suitable statements may include:

“The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.”

or

“The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to legal, ethical, or confidentiality restrictions.”

or

“No datasets were generated or analysed during the preparation of this article.”

6. AI use disclosure

Where generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in a manner that materially affected the preparation, analysis, or content of the manuscript, authors must disclose this clearly.

The declaration should indicate:

• the name of the tool;
• the purpose of the use;
• the extent of the use;
• the part of the manuscript or research process affected, where relevant.

A suitable statement may read:

“The authors used [name of tool] for [language editing / grammar correction / formatting / organizational assistance / analytical support]. All output was reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.”

Where no relevant AI use occurred, no separate AI statement is required unless requested by the Journal.

7. Ethical approval or special permissions

Where relevant, authors should disclose whether the manuscript required ethical approval, institutional authorization, permission to reproduce copyrighted or restricted materials, or other formal approvals.

Where no such approval was required, authors may state this briefly where useful for clarity.

8. Acknowledgements

Authors may include a brief acknowledgement of scholarly, editorial, linguistic, technical, or institutional support that does not amount to authorship.

Acknowledgements must not be used to conceal authorship, undisclosed contributions, or conflicts of interest.

9. Form and consistency

The Journal may require declarations to appear under separate subheadings, such as:

• Funding
• Conflict of Interest
• Author Contributions
• Data Availability
• AI Use Disclosure
• Acknowledgements

Where a declaration is not applicable, the authors should indicate this clearly rather than omitting the heading without explanation.

10. Open Access Statement

Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia is a fully Open Access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. In accordance with the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition, users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

11. Copyright and Licensing

Authors publishing with Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia retain the copyright to their work. Authors grant the Journal a non-exclusive license to publish and distribute the article as the original publisher.

All articles published in the Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. This license allows third parties to download, share, and distribute the work, provided that the original author(s) and source are properly cited. The material cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without explicit permission.

12. Form and Consistency of Licensing Information

The applicable Creative Commons license logo and its clear textual reference must be visibly displayed on the website of the Journal, as well as on the first page of each published article’s PDF version.

13. Editorial discretion

The editors reserve the right to request additional declarations, clarifications, or revisions where necessary in order to ensure transparency, consistency, and compliance with the Journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

This Statements and Declarations guidance should be read together with the Journal’s:

• Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
• Generative AI Policy
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy
• Peer Review Policy
• Corrections, Retractions and Editorial Expressions of Concern Policy

It is recommended to use an 11-point Arial (a sans serif font) or a 12-point Times New Roman (a serif font) due to their readability, accessibility, and ability to support special characters. Traditionally, sans serif fonts have been favoured for digital content, while serif fonts are more common in print. However, modern screen resolutions generally support both font types effectively.

Make sure to use a consistent font throughout your document, except in tables, figures, and footnotes, where 9-point Arial or 10-point Times New Roman is suggested.

Studia includes five levels of headings. The number of headings you should use in a paper depends on its length and complexity. Only apply as many levels as necessary to distinguish different sections in your document. Below is a guide for formatting each level.

• Level 1: Paper Title (Centered, Bold)
• Level 2: 1. Subsection (Flush Left, Bold)
• Level 3: 1.1. Subsection (Flush Left, Bold Italic)
• Level 4: 1.1.1. Subsection (Indented, Bold)
• Level 5: 1.1.1.1. Subsection (Indented, Bold Italic)

The title page of the manuscript should include the following elements: the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), the institutional affiliation(s) of the author(s), an abstract in English, and keywords in English. Page numbers should be inserted using the automatic page-numbering function of the word processor.

• Paper Title: The title and any subtitle may be placed on separate lines if preferred. Titles should remain concise and include the key terms of the manuscript.
• Author Names: List the names of all authors in the order in which they should appear in the published manuscript.
• Author Affiliations: Please provide the institutional affiliation of each author, including the department and the university or other institution, where applicable.
• Abstract: Please provide an abstract in English, not exceeding 250 words, summarizing the subject, purpose, approach, and main conclusions of the manuscript.
• Keywords: Please provide 4–6 keywords in English that reflect the main subject and scope of the manuscript.
• Page Numbers: Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word processor.

When setting up a table, the table number (e.g., Table 1) and title should be placed above the table. Tables may have different headings based on the data they display. The table body consists of all rows and columns, including the heading row. Add notes below the table to explain any information that isn't clear from the title or body alone.

For figures, the figure number (e.g., Figure 1) and title also go above the figure. The image portion refers to the graph, chart, photo, drawing, or other visual representation. As with tables, provide notes below the figure to clarify any content not obvious from the title or image.

In Studia, APA 7th edition referencing is used with the author–date citation system for in-text citations. Each source in the paper requires both an in-text citation and a corresponding reference list entry.