Peer Review Process

ICJLS is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to ICJLS for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at ICJLS proceeds in nine steps, described as follows.

  1. Submission of Paper. The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, the journal also temporarily accepts paper submissions by email.
  2. Editorial Office Assessment. The submitted paper is first assessed by the ICJLS editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with the journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylization. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step is checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without further review.
  4. Invitation to Reviewers. The handling editor sends invitations to individuals believed to be appropriate reviewers, based on expertise, closeness of research interest, and absence of conflict of interest. The peer review process at ICJLS involves a community of experts in the field of legal science who are qualified to conduct reviews fairly and impartially. Impartiality is also maintained through the double-blind peer review employed by this journal: the reviewer does not know the author's identity, and the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.
  5. Response to Invitations. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability, then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask a potential reviewer who declines for a suggestion of an alternative reviewer.
  6. Review is Conducted. Reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read forms an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may reject the paper without further work. Otherwise, the reviewer reads the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed, point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper, or a request for revision, usually flagged as major or minor, before it is reconsidered.
  7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews. The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.
  8. The Decision is Communicated. The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author, who takes the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers also receive an email or letter informing them of the outcome of their review.
  9. Final Steps. If accepted, the paper is sent to copyediting. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author makes corrections and revises the paper according to the reviewers' comments and instructions.

    After revision, the author resubmits the revised paper to the editor. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. Where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review may be done by the handling editor instead. If the editor is satisfied with the revised paper, it is considered accepted. Drawing on the feedback from the peer review process, the editor makes the final publication decision. The review process takes approximately one to two weeks. Accepted papers are published online and are freely available as downloadable PDF files.