Peer Review Process

Verdict: Journal of Law Science applies a single-anonymous peer review process to all research articles considered for external peer review. Under this system, reviewers are provided with the authors' identities and affiliations, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential to the authors throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

The peer review process aims to ensure the originality, legal accuracy, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical quality, and academic relevance of published articles. The journal follows a structured review process involving manuscript submission, editorial screening, reviewer selection, external evaluation, revision, editorial decision-making, and publication.


Stage 1. Manuscript Submission
Responsible party: Author

  1. The author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system.
  2. The author ensures that the manuscript complies with the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies.
  3. The author provides complete submission information, including the manuscript title, abstract, keywords, author names, affiliations, and other required declarations.
  4. The author submits the manuscript with accurate references and appropriate supporting materials.
  5. The author provides applicable declarations concerning research ethics, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, and generative AI use, where required by the journal's policies.

Editorial action: The submission is registered in the journal's system, and the corresponding author receives an acknowledgment of receipt.


Stage 2. Technical Check and Initial Editorial Screening
Responsible parties: Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor

  1. The Managing Editor checks the completeness of the submission and confirms that the required files and declarations have been provided.
  2. The Managing Editor checks compliance with the journal's manuscript template, author guidelines, reference style, and technical requirements.
  3. The manuscript undergoes a similarity check using the journal's designated plagiarism-screening software. The editor examines the report and evaluates any potential concerns; a similarity score alone is not treated as conclusive evidence of plagiarism.
  4. The Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, basic scholarly quality, and suitability for external peer review.
  5. The editor may return the manuscript for technical corrections, request clarification, reject it without external review, or approve it for further editorial handling.

Possible outcomes:

  • Returned for technical correction: The author must address the identified deficiencies before further processing.
  • Rejected at initial screening: The author is notified of the decision and, where appropriate, the reasons for rejection.
  • Passed initial screening: The manuscript proceeds to reviewer selection.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee external review or acceptance for publication.


Stage 3. Editorial Assignment and Reviewer Selection
Responsible parties: Editor-in-Chief and Handling Editor or Managing Editor

  1. The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Handling Editor or an appropriate member of the editorial board.
  2. The Handling Editor identifies at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's legal subject, theoretical framework, or research methodology.
  3. The editor invites the reviewers through the journal's submission system and provides the manuscript, review guidelines, evaluation criteria, and review deadline.
  4. Invited reviewers are asked to confirm their availability, expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.
  5. If an invited reviewer declines or fails to respond within a reasonable period, the editor sends a reminder or invites an alternative reviewer.
  6. The Managing Editor monitors the invitation process and coordinates follow-up communication as necessary.

Under the single-anonymous review system, reviewers receive the manuscript with the authors' names and affiliations. However, reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.


Stage 4. Single-Anonymous Peer Review
Responsible parties: Two independent reviewers

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and submits a review report through the journal's submission system. The reviewers assess the following aspects, as applicable:

  1. Originality and relevance: Whether the manuscript addresses a significant legal issue and contributes to legal scholarship or practice.
  2. Research problem and objectives: Whether the research problem, research questions, and objectives are clearly formulated and adequately justified.
  3. Literature review and theoretical framework: Whether relevant legal scholarship, previous studies, and theoretical perspectives are critically examined.
  4. Legal materials and methodology: Whether the research design and methods are appropriate, including the selection and interpretation of legislation, judicial decisions, legal doctrines, empirical data, or other research materials, as applicable.
  5. Legal analysis and argumentation: Whether the legal reasoning is coherent, accurate, logically developed, and supported by relevant legal authorities and evidence.
  6. Results and discussion: Whether the findings address the research questions and are adequately connected to the theoretical framework, legal context, and previous scholarship.
  7. Conclusions and implications: Whether the conclusions follow from the analysis and provide meaningful theoretical, practical, or policy implications.
  8. Academic writing and referencing: Whether the manuscript is clearly written, appropriately structured, and accurately referenced.
  9. Research ethics and integrity: Whether the manuscript complies with applicable ethical standards and demonstrates responsible research and publication practices.

Each reviewer provides constructive comments for the author and a confidential recommendation for the editor. Reviewers must justify their assessments with clear academic reasoning.

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept without revision.
  • Minor revision.
  • Major revision.
  • Reject.

Reviewers must complete their reports within the assigned deadline. The editor may send reminders, extend the deadline when justified, or invite replacement reviewers when necessary.

Editorial action: The Handling Editor checks the completeness and adequacy of the review reports before proceeding to the editorial decision.


Stage 5. Editorial Evaluation and First Decision
Responsible parties: Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief

  1. The Handling Editor evaluates both review reports and considers the reviewers' assessments, comments, and recommendations.
  2. The editor assesses the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance to the journal's scope, legal accuracy, methodological rigor, and compliance with publication ethics.
  3. If the reports provide sufficient grounds for a decision, the editor proceeds with the editorial evaluation.
  4. If the reports are incomplete, unclear, or substantially contradictory, the editor may request clarification, obtain an additional review, or conduct further editorial assessment.
  5. The editor determines one of the following outcomes:
  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and requires no substantive revision.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before acceptance can be confirmed.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.
  1. The Managing Editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author and provides the reviewers' comments without disclosing their identities.

Reviewers provide recommendations, but the editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.


Stage 6. Manuscript Revision
Responsible party: Author

When revision is requested, the author must:

  1. Revise the manuscript in response to the editor's decision and the reviewers' comments.
  2. Prepare a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
  3. Identify the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript using tracked changes or another format specified by the journal.
  4. Provide a reasoned explanation when a reviewer recommendation is not adopted.
  5. Verify the accuracy of legal citations, legislation, judicial decisions, references, research findings, and other supporting materials.
  6. Resubmit the revised manuscript and response document through the journal's submission system within the specified deadline.

If additional time is required, the author must request an extension from the editorial office. A revised manuscript is not automatically accepted, and failure to submit a revision within the specified period may result in the submission being closed in accordance with the journal's procedures.


Stage 7. Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript
Responsible parties: Handling Editor and, where necessary, the original reviewers

  1. The Managing Editor checks the completeness of the revised manuscript and the author's response document.
  2. The Handling Editor examines the revisions and evaluates whether the author's responses adequately address the reviewers' concerns.
  3. For minor revisions, the editor may verify the changes directly when further specialist evaluation is unnecessary.
  4. For major revisions or substantive legal or methodological concerns, the editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers.
  5. The reviewers assess the revised manuscript and indicate whether their concerns have been resolved. They may recommend acceptance, further revision, or rejection.
  6. If necessary, the editor may request another revision round or obtain an additional expert opinion.

The journal may conduct multiple revision rounds when required. Throughout these rounds, reviewer identities remain confidential to the authors.


Stage 8. Final Editorial Decision
Responsible parties: Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief

After evaluating the revised manuscript and any additional review reports, the editor makes the final decision.

  • Accepted: The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements and proceeds to production.
  • Further Revision Required: Additional changes are necessary before a final decision can be made.
  • Rejected: The manuscript remains unsuitable for publication because of unresolved substantive, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns.

The Managing Editor informs the corresponding author of the decision and any required next steps. The editor may reject a revised manuscript if critical concerns remain unresolved.


Stage 9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication
Responsible parties: Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Author

  1. The accepted manuscript is transferred to the production stage.
  2. The Managing Editor or Production Editor coordinates copyediting, reference verification, formatting, and preparation of the publication-ready version.
  3. The author responds to editorial queries and verifies the accuracy of author details, legal citations, references, tables, figures, and other publication elements.
  4. The author reviews the page proofs and reports typographical or production errors within the specified period. Substantial changes to the accepted manuscript require editorial approval.
  5. The editorial team completes the final quality checks and publishes the article in the designated issue or online format.

Acceptance and publication are separate stages. An accepted manuscript is published only after the required production and quality-control procedures have been completed.


Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Reviewer Independence

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Under the single-anonymous review system, reviewers may know the authors' identities, but reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors. The journal does not ordinarily reveal reviewer identities in decision letters or review reports.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, share confidential materials with unauthorized parties, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. They must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may be compromised.

Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers regarding a manuscript under review. All substantive communication about the review process must be conducted through the editorial office or the journal's submission system.

Editors must maintain impartiality, protect confidential information, and ensure that manuscripts are assessed on their scholarly merit. If an editor has a conflict of interest involving a submission, the manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor. The journal may take appropriate action if breaches of confidentiality, reviewer misconduct, or other publication ethics concerns are identified.