Peer Review Process
Peer-Review Process
Legalis: Journal of Law Review follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.
Submission and Initial Evaluation
All manuscripts submitted to Legalis undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing. The Editor-in-Chief screens submitted manuscripts to ensure their conformity to the journal's scope and basic submission requirements. Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to a subject-specific handling editor.
Peer Review
Each eligible manuscript is then sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, publication history, and availability. Potential conflicts of interest are actively avoided to maintain objectivity. In cases where conflicting opinions arise, additional reviewers may be assigned to provide a comprehensive evaluation.
Double-Blind Review
Legalis ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts, and authors receive anonymized feedback to maintain impartiality in the evaluation process.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on:
- Originality and significance of the research.
- Methodological rigor and accuracy.
- Clarity of presentation and adherence to ethical guidelines.
- Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to assist authors in enhancing the quality of their work.
Review Duration
Legalis strives to provide a timely and efficient peer-review process. Reviewers are typically given 3-4 weeks to complete their evaluations, with reminders sent to ensure adherence to the timeline. Authors will be informed of the estimated duration of the review process during submission or after revisions.
Decision and Revision
Upon completion of the peer-review process, the handling editor synthesizes the reviewers' feedback and recommendations. Possible outcomes include:
- Acceptance.
- Minor or major revisions.
- Reject and resubmit.
- Rejection.
For manuscripts with conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted for an additional opinion. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, which is communicated to the authors along with detailed comments and anonymized feedback.
Revision Process
Authors are typically given 3-4 weeks for minor revisions and 6-8 weeks for major revisions. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the handling editor and, when necessary, the original reviewers. If further revisions are required, the process may be repeated until the manuscript meets the journal's standards.
Final Decision
After revisions, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the handling editor, determines whether the manuscript is ready for publication. The final decision may include acceptance, further revision, or rejection if the manuscript fails to meet the required standards.
Post-Acceptance
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and typesetting to ensure accuracy and consistency. Authors are provided with proofs for review before final publication.
Confidentiality
Legalis maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and must not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.
Continuous Improvement
Legalis: Journal of Law Review continuously evaluates and refines its peer-review process. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors is invaluable in ensuring the system remains efficient, fair, and transparent.
Contact
For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at journal@idscipub.com
