The peer-review process helps determine whether a manuscript presents a meaningful contribution to law, jurisprudence, justice, governance, public policy or related interdisciplinary legal studies.

Reviewers may also recommend improvements in legal reasoning, research methodology, case analysis, statutory interpretation, citation, structure and academic presentation.

Reviewers are selected according to their legal expertise, academic experience, subject knowledge, independence and suitability for the manuscript.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where a personal, professional, institutional, academic or financial conflict may affect impartial judgment.

• Evaluate the manuscript objectively and fairly.
• Provide clear, constructive and academically relevant comments.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest.
• Avoid personal criticism or discriminatory remarks.
• Identify significant legal, citation, originality or ethical concerns.
• Do not use unpublished arguments or information for personal advantage.

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential materials and must not be shared with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not reproduce, distribute or upload unpublished manuscripts to unauthorized external platforms, including generative artificial intelligence systems.

• Statutes and legal provisions should be cited accurately.
• Judicial decisions should not be quoted or interpreted misleadingly.
• Jurisdictional differences should be identified clearly.
• Repealed or amended laws should be presented with proper context.
• Secondary sources should support rather than replace primary legal authority.
• Retracted, corrected or unreliable sources should be identified appropriately.

Where legal research involves interviews, surveys, court records, confidential documents or identifiable participants, reviewers may assess whether suitable consent, privacy and institutional requirements have been addressed.

Manuscripts should not disclose protected personal, commercial, client or case information without appropriate authorization.

• Review all editorial and reviewer comments carefully.
• Prepare a clear point-by-point response.
• Identify changes made in the revised manuscript.
• Correct inaccurate legal citations and references.
• Provide academic reasons where a recommendation is not followed.
• Check consistency throughout the revised manuscript.
• Submit all corrected files through the official journal channel.

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial process but do not independently determine publication.

The final decision is made by the authorized editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, legal accuracy, journal scope and ethical requirements.

Editors and reviewers should disclose relationships or interests that may influence their judgment. This may include professional collaboration, institutional association, academic competition, financial interests or involvement in the legal matter being discussed.

Where a significant conflict exists, the manuscript may be reassigned to another qualified reviewer or editor.

Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit, legal relevance, originality, ethical compliance and contribution to legal scholarship.

Payment, institutional status, personal influence or commercial interests must not guarantee acceptance or favourable review.

• Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized AI systems.
• AI-generated review comments must not replace independent scholarly judgment.
• Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and fairness of their reports.
• Confidential legal or personal information must remain protected.

Authors may submit a respectful appeal where they believe an editorial decision involved a significant factual error, procedural concern, conflict of interest or misunderstanding of the legal argument.

The appeal should identify specific academic or procedural grounds. General disagreement with reviewer comments does not automatically justify reconsideration.