Policies

Peer review process

How manuscripts are screened, reviewed and decided.

  • Aligned with COPE Core Practices
  • 3 min read
On this page

At a glance

  • Independent experts review every research article.
  • The editor decides on the weight of the reviews, not on a vote count.
  • Manuscripts and reviews stay confidential throughout.
Review model
Double anonymous
Time to review
3 weeks
Acceptance rate
90%
Submission to publication
2 days (median)

Peer review is the heart of Journal Law and Justice's quality assurance. Every research article is assessed by independent experts before a decision is made, and editors take care that the process is fair, confidential and as quick as rigour allows.

Review model

The review model is set by the editors and stated in the author guidelines. In a double-anonymous review neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identity, so authors must remove names, affiliations and identifying self-citations from the manuscript file. In a single-anonymous review the reviewers know who the authors are.

Steps from submission to decision

  1. Initial check: the editorial office checks scope, completeness, the author guidelines, ethics statements and similarity with existing work. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements are returned or declined without review, usually within a few days.
  2. Editor assignment: a handling editor without conflicts of interest takes charge of the manuscript.
  3. Reviewer invitation: the editor invites at least two independent reviewers, chosen for their expertise. Reviewers are not from the authors' institution and have not co-authored with them recently.
  4. Review: reviewers assess originality, significance, methods, analysis, interpretation, references, ethics and clarity, and recommend accept, minor revision, major revision or decline.
  5. Decision: the editor weighs the reviews (not a vote count) and makes the decision, inviting another reviewer when reviews disagree.
  6. Revision: authors revise and reply to every comment point by point. Major revisions usually go back to the reviewers.
  7. Acceptance and production: accepted articles are copyedited, typeset and checked by the authors before publication.

Decisions

  • Accept: the manuscript can be published as it is or with minor editing.
  • Minor revision: small changes are needed; the editor checks them.
  • Major revision: substantial changes are needed; the revised version is reviewed again.
  • Decline: the manuscript is not suitable for the journal. Authors receive the reasons and the reviewers' comments.

Confidentiality and integrity

  • Manuscripts, reviews and editorial correspondence are confidential.
  • Reviewers and editors must not use what they read for their own work or share it with others.
  • Editors never handle their own manuscripts; submissions from editors or board members go to another editor and are reviewed like any other.
  • Manipulating peer review (for example suggesting fake reviewers) leads to rejection or retraction.

Timing

The editors aim to keep review times short and tell authors about any delay. Authors can follow the progress of their manuscript at any time and may contact the editorial office at [email protected] if a step takes much longer than expected.

Journal-specific terms

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Official references

This policy follows these published standards and guidelines. Each link opens the original source.