Code of Ethics

  1. Declaration on the moral and ethical principles of publishing

The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Law (ISSN: 1788-6171) – hereinafter referred to as JAEL – applies the collegial revision (double-blind review) process, therefore each party contributing to the publishing (author, journal editor, lecturer and publisher) should accept the standards relevant for the expected moral behaviour. The present moral statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors applicable by journal editors of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics,


  1. Peer-review

JAEL only accepts submissions of manuscripts that have not been published in other journals in English, French or German prior to submission to JAEL, and that are the author's own scientific achievement. With the exception of English, German and French, earlier publication in any of the national languages is not an obstacle of submission. The study can be published only in one issue of JAEL.

Submitted manuscripts are subjects to a general editorial review before being sent to the peer-reviewers. The peer-reviewers are high-level experts in the given field of science, whose independence is ensured both from the personal and organizational point of view.

The system of peer-review of JAEL is based on anonymity in both directions. It means that the identity of the peer-reviewers and the authors remains mutually confidential. The Editorial Board sends all incoming papers to two experts with academic degree in order to give their opinions about the paper. JAEL's editorial principle is that no study may be published in JAEL that has not received at least one supporting reviewer's opinion. However, the Editorial Board reserves the right to make the final decision even in the case of two supporting reviewers' opinions.

Authors are required to submit their study in English, German or French. Submission in the national language of the author is only a possibility.

During peer-reviewing, communication with the professional / foreign language lecturers is via e-mail. Correspondence in connection with peer-reviewing and the peer-reviewers’ reviews are archived by the editor-in-chief.

JAEL implements its system of peer-review through the editor-in-chief in charge of the formal aspects, the peer-reviewers called upon by the Editorial Board and the foreign language proofreaders for language compliance:

A. Editor-in-chief:

A.1. Has the study been sent to ensure anonimity?  Yes/No

A.2. Does the study meet the detailed formal requirements of JAEL? Yes/No

A.3. Did the author attach the declaration that he/she hadn’t recommended his/her study for publication to other journals and that his/her study hasn’t been published yet? Yes/No

A.4.a. Did the PhD Student attach the reference of his/her scientific supervisor? Yes/No

A.4.b. Did the undergraduate student attach the reference of a scientific consultant? Yes/No


B. Peer-reviewer (expert):

The Editorial Board appoints the peer-reviewers from the members of Editorial Board, the International Council of Experts and Peer-reviewers and external peers. If justified by the subject matter of the study, the Editorial Board appoints other peer reviewers with academic degree who are experts of the given field.

The peer-review is anonymous (anonymous peer-review), so the author of the study knows only the content of peer-review. The Editorial Board draws the peer reviewer’s attention that he/she maintains the final decision of publication. The Editorial Board also draws the attention that it cannot pay remuneration for peer-review, but on request it can issue a certificate about peer-reviewing.

In connection with peer-review, the peer reviewers need to answer the following questions by underlining/explicating:

Is the study of high quality? Yes/No

Is the relevant national and international sources of law and case law adequately processed in relation to the subject of the study? Yes/No (The peer-reviewers have the right to suggest further sources of law and case law for the author to process.): 


Is the relevant national and international scientific literature adequately processed in relation to the subject of the study? Yes/No (The peer-reviewers have the right to suggest further scientific literature for the author to process.): 


Does the study evaluate the analyzed sources of law and case law, and does it contain de lege ferenda proposals? (Does the study contain own scientific results?) Yes/No

Is the study’s citation system relevant and correct? Yes/No

Does the peer-reviewer recommend the study for publication in JAEL? Yes/No/With changes (for example: with the above-mentioned additions in connection with sources of law, case law or scientific literature)


C. Linguistic proofreader (in case of studies translated from a foreign language to Hungarian):

Is the study correct concerning the translation? Yes/No


The linguistic proofreader, if it is necessary, corrects some paragraphs of the study. Hence the linguistic proofreader does not correct large materials of studies. If the linguistic proofreader does not contribute to the publication of the study even for the third time, it means the final rejection of the study.


  1. Obligations of the lecturers

Contribution to editorial decisions

The lecturer helps the editor in decision-making if it is required, supports the author in raising the scientific level of the article during the process of collegial revision (double-blind review).



In case the selected lecturer feels that he is not professional enough to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript or knows that he is not able to prepare his statement effectively and in time, he is obliged to notify the editor and waive his participation in the proofreading process.



All manuscripts received for evaluation should be considered as confidential document. These can only be released or discussed with others based on the prior consent of the editor.



The evaluation shall be carried out objectively. The criticism of the author is not appropriate. The lecturers shall make their viewsstraightforward and arguing.


Reference to sources

The lecturers should acknowledge the relevant published works not cited by the authors. Any statement that contains an observation, thought or argument from a work earlier published has to be accompanied by the appropriate reference. Furthermore, the lecturer should draw the editor's attention to any substantive similarity or overlapping between the manuscript examined and other material previously published and known by him.


Disclosure and conflict of interest

The privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation should be handled confidentially and cannot be used for personal promotion. Copy editors may not evaluate the manuscript if they are in conflict with the authors, firms or institutions associated with the study due to competitive, collaborative or other relationship.


  1. Decisions on publishing

The editor of JAEL decides which submitted manuscripts are published in the journal. The editor can be guided by the guidelines set by the Editorial Board of the journal and may be limited by the current legislation on libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may ask for help from other editors or lecturers to make his decision. The editor of the journal is allowed to run a computer programme for filtering out plagiarism.


  1. Equal opportunities

The editor always evaluates the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or political views of the authors.


  1. Confidentiality

The editor and the Editorial Board do not provide any information regarding the manuscript submitted for publication. Exceptions to this rule are the correspondent author, peer-reviewers, potential lecturers, other editorial consultants and the publisher.


  1. Disclosure and conflict of interest

The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished material of the submitted manuscript for his own research without the author's prior written consent.


  1. Obligations of the authors

Guidelines for disclosure

Authors presenting original research should provide an accurate report of the work performed. The drawing of interpretations and conclusions can only be based on facts or unbiased and logical evidence. The background data of the study should be accurately presented. The study should provide sufficient detail and reference so that the processes described can be repeated by others. False or knowingly inaccurate claims are considered unethical and unacceptable behavior.

If authors wish to revoke or correct any part of the study, they should contact one of the editors who will launch the general peer-reviewing process for the revised parts.

The publisher and the editors support correcting, clarifying, retracting or explaining the content of the study in all cases.

The submission of the manuscript and any amendments or supplements thereto shall be free of charge. The author is not remunerated for the publication.


Originality and plagiarism

Authors shall guarantee that the study is their own original  intellectual work and if they used others’ works and/or expressions, those are cited appropriately and professionally referred to them.

The publisher and editors will take the necessary steps if a manuscript is suspected of plagiarism. Under no circumstances may the publisher and the editors be identified with any forms of plagiarism conducts and they do not permit any forms of them. If a statement for plagiarism is sent to the publisher or the editors in connection with any of the studies, the editors scrutinise the circumstances and take the necessary steps.


Multiple, redundant or simultaneous publishing

It is not a good practice to include the manuscript of the same research in various independent publications or journals. The submission of the same manuscript to different journals is deemed unethical behaviour and unacceptable.


Reference to sources

The cited works must be properly referred to in all cases. Authors should refer to all publications that have influenced their work.


The position of study authorship

Any person who has contributed substantially to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the presented study should be included as an author. Those should be indicated as co-authors who have contributed significantly to the study. However, those should be mentioned as contributors who have been involved in certain important stages of the research project. Furthermore, the correspondent author should warrant that all major co-authors are mentioned in the study and he has not nominated persons as co-authors who are not entitled for it and all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the study and agreed to publish it.


Disclosure and conflict of interest

Each author is obliged to disclose the financial or other material conflicts of interest in his manuscript which may influence its results or interpretation. All funding sources of the project should be made public.