Peer Review Policy

The CLRS Journal of Global Justice & Governance (ISSN: 3049-1940) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure that all published research meets the highest standards of academic excellence, originality, and legal scholarship. The journal is committed to maintaining ethical integrity and transparency in its review process. Every submission undergoes a thorough evaluation to assess its factual accuracy, legal soundness, theoretical contributions, and adherence to international law and governance frameworks.

Initial Screening & Plagiarism Check

Before undergoing peer review, each submission is screened by the editorial team for:

The journal uses Turnitin/iThenticate to check for plagiarism. Submissions exceeding 10% similarity (excluding references, quotes, and legal texts) are automatically rejected.
Formatting, structure, and referencing style are checked.
The manuscript must align with the journal’s thematic focus and research priorities.

Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are sent for double-blind peer review.

Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to two independent subject-matter experts for peer review. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

If the two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may:

Seek a third expert review
Make a final decision based on editorial evaluation

Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following metrics:

Criteria	Evaluation Focus
Identification of Issues	Clarity in defining the research problem or legal issue.
Depth of Research	Extent of engagement with primary and secondary sources.
Analysis, Interpretation & Conclusions	Logical reasoning, application of legal principles, and sound conclusions.
Originality & Innovation	Novelty of arguments and contribution to existing scholarship.
Engagement with Existing Literature	Use of relevant, authoritative sources and critical analysis of prior research.
Clarity & Structure	Logical organization, coherence, and readability of the manuscript.
Appropriate Referencing	Proper citation of statutes, cases, treaties, and academic sources.
Contribution to Jurisprudence	Impact on international law, global justice, and governance discourse.

Reviewers provide feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement.

Types of Review Outcomes

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers recommend one of the following:

Decision	Meaning
Accept Without Changes	The manuscript is of high quality and ready for publication.
Accept with Minor Revisions	The paper requires small corrections, but the core arguments are strong.
Revise & Resubmit (Major Revisions)	The manuscript needs significant improvements before reconsideration.
Reject with Option to Resubmit	The paper is not accepted in its current form, but a complete rewrite could allow resubmission.
Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Authors receiving a revise & resubmit decision must address all reviewer comments within the specified time frame (typically 4–6 weeks).
Editors will verify whether revisions meet the required standard before making a final acceptance decision.

Incorporation of Reviewer Comments

Authors are expected to address reviewer feedback comprehensively. In cases of minor revisions, authors must submit the revised manuscript within two to three weeks. For major revisions, authors are typically given four to six weeks to make necessary modifications.

The editorial team evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the reviewers' concerns. If the changes are found to be insufficient, further modifications may be requested. If an author disagrees with certain reviewer comments, they must provide a detailed justification explaining why specific changes were not made. The final decision on the adequacy of revisions rests with the editorial team.

Failure to adequately incorporate feedback may result in rejection.

Role of Editors in the Peer Review Process

The editorial team serves as a liaison between authors and reviewers. Their responsibilities include:
✅ Ensuring objective and high-quality reviews.
✅ Addressing any concerns from authors or reviewers.
✅ Maintaining the confidentiality and anonymity of the review process.
✅ Making the final decision on acceptance, rejection, or additional revisions.

If an author has queries regarding peer review feedback, they may contact the editors, who will communicate with the reviewers as necessary.

Reviewer Selection & Ethical Standards

The journal selects reviewers who are experts in international law, governance, or related legal fields. These reviewers include established academicians, legal professionals, and policy experts with substantial research contributions. The journal ensures that reviewers are independent, qualified, and free from conflicts of interest with the assigned manuscript.

To maintain ethical integrity, authors are required to disclose any prior discussions regarding their manuscript with individuals who could be potential reviewers. Any undisclosed conflict of interest may result in rejection of the submission. Similarly, if a reviewer realizes they have a conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from the review process.

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may lead to rejection or further editorial action.

Peer Review Timeline

Stage	Timeframe
Initial Screening & Plagiarism Check	7–10 days
Reviewer Assignment & Double-Blind Review	3–4 weeks
Revisions (if required)	3–4 weeks for major revisions, 2–3 weeks for minor revisions
Final Decision	5–8 weeks from submission

The journal endeavors to complete the review within 5–8 weeks, but timelines may extend based on complexity, reviewer availability, or multiple revision rounds.
Authors receive regular status updates.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The CLRS Journal of Global Justice & Governance strictly adheres to confidentiality policies to protect the integrity of the peer review process. Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, and vice versa. The content of review reports remains confidential and is only shared with the authors and the editorial team.

Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, distributing, or using unpublished material from manuscripts they have reviewed. Authors are similarly expected to refrain from attempting to contact reviewers directly.

Appeals & Author Complaints

Authors may appeal a rejection decision if they believe the review process was flawed or if there was a fundamental misunderstanding of their work. Appeals must be submitted in writing within 14 days of receiving the rejection notice, providing a detailed explanation of the concerns. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal, and in some cases, an additional reviewer may be consulted. The decision made after the appeal is final and cannot be further contested.

????Appeals must be submitted within 14 days of receiving the rejection notice.

Ethical Considerations and Research Integrity

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to ensure the highest standards of ethical publishing. Any instances of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification of data, or unethical research practices will lead to immediate rejection and may result in blacklisting from future submissions.

If ethical concerns arise post-publication, the journal reserves the right to issue retractions, corrections, or editorial statements as necessary.

The CLRS Journal of Global Justice & Governance is committed to a fair, rigorous, and ethical peer review process that ensures only high-quality, original, and impactful research is published. Through editorial oversight, expert peer review, and strict ethical guidelines, the journal fosters meaningful contributions to international law, global governance, and justice studies.

For any inquiries related to the peer review process, authors may contact the editorial office at editor.jgjg@academyclrs.org.

-----