Peer review policy

Policy facts

These facts come from the journal’s settings in the portal, so they always describe how the journal actually works.

The stages of review

Every manuscript passes through the stages below. The editors may decline a paper at any stage, and they always give their reasons.

• Abstract selection. The editors read each abstract and decide whether the full paper should be invited. An invitation to submit the full paper is not a promise of acceptance.
• Preliminary review. The editors check the format, length and anonymisation of the manuscript, and run the similarity and AI checks.
• Editorial review. The editors read the paper and assess its originality, structure, substance, citation and language.
• External review. At least one expert reviewer assesses the paper and makes a recommendation.
• Board of Advisors. Where the editors think it useful, they may also ask the journal’s Board of Advisors for advice before deciding.

At the preliminary stage, a paper that does not meet the submission guidelines may be returned to the authors for correction before review continues. At the editorial stage, the editors may decline a paper without external review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, makes no original contribution, or has serious problems of method, citation or language. This saves the authors’ time as well as the reviewers’.

The review model

The journal uses double-blind peer review. The authors do not know who reviewed their paper, and the reviewers are not told who wrote it. The names of the authors are kept on a separate cover page that reviewers never receive, which is why the submission guidelines ask authors to remove anything that would identify them.

Review is a confidential process whichever model is used. The manuscript, the reports and the editors’ correspondence are not shared with anyone outside the process.

How reviewers are chosen

The editors invite reviewers for their knowledge of the subject of the paper. Reviewers may be academics, practitioners or other specialists, and they are not members of the Editorial Board handling the paper. The editors do not invite anyone with a known conflict with the authors, such as a colleague at the same institution, a recent co-author, a supervisor or student, or a close personal or professional connection.

Authors may say on the cover page that a particular person should not review their paper, with the reason. The editors take such a request into account but are not bound by it. Authors may not choose their own reviewers.

A reviewer who is not able to give the paper the time it needs, or who finds that they lack the expertise, should decline the invitation so that someone else can be asked.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers are asked whether the paper makes an original contribution to its field, whether its statement of the law and of the facts is accurate, whether its sources are appropriate and correctly cited, whether the argument is clear and well supported, and whether its conclusions follow from it. They are asked to recommend acceptance, revision or rejection, and to give comments that will help the authors improve the paper whatever the outcome.

Reviewers

• Reviewers declare any conflict of interest before they accept an invitation.
• They keep the manuscript confidential and do not upload it to AI tools.
• The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Reviewer names are never published.
• Each reviewer receives a certificate of reviewing when the report is submitted.

Reviewers must not contact the authors about the paper, must not share it or discuss it with anyone else, and must not use anything in it for their own work before it is published. A reviewer who wishes to involve a colleague or student in the review must first ask the editors.

Reviewers must not put a manuscript, or any part of it, into a generative AI tool, and must not use such a tool to assess the paper or to write the report. A spelling or grammar check of the reviewer’s own words is acceptable. These limits protect the confidentiality of the authors’ work and keep review in the hands of the people the editors chose.

Reports should be specific, courteous and constructive. Comments that are personal or dismissive are not passed on to the authors as written.

Decisions

The decision is to accept the paper, to ask for revisions or to reject it. Every decision states its reasons and includes the reviewers’ comments without their names. A revised paper may go back to the reviewers if the editor thinks it necessary.

The reviewers advise and the editors decide. The editors weigh the reports against each other and against their own reading of the paper, and they are not bound to follow a majority of recommendations. Where the reports disagree sharply, or a report is not adequate, the editors may ask for a further review.

A request for revisions is not a promise of acceptance. The revised paper is assessed on whether it meets the concerns raised, and it can still be declined. Accepted papers are copyedited, and the authors see a proof before publication.

Timing

The journal does not promise a fixed time for review, because careful review takes as long as it needs. Authors can follow every step of their paper on the tracker.

Reviewers are given a date for their report and are reminded before it. If a reviewer cannot report, the editors invite another.

Editorial independence

Decisions are made by the editors alone. The Publishing Partner and the journal’s funding have no influence on any decision. When a member of the Board submits a paper, another editor handles it and the member takes no part in the decision.

An editor who has a conflict of interest in a paper does not handle it and takes no part in the decision. Papers by editors, by members of Centre for Legal Research and Studies and by authors the editors know are reviewed in the same way as every other paper.

Appeals

An author may appeal a decision once, from the manuscript tracker, within 30 days, giving reasons. The appeal is considered by an editor who took no part in the decision. Anyone may also make a complaint about the journal through the Complaints and appeals page.

An appeal should show that the decision rested on a factual error, a clear misreading of the paper, a conflict of interest that was not declared or a failure to follow this policy. Disagreement with a reviewer’s opinion is not, on its own, a ground for appeal. The Complaints and appeals page explains the procedure in full.