Peer Review Process

Legal Research & Analysis employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly quality, originality, and impartiality in published legal research. This double-blind system—where neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities—helps minimize bias and promotes fair evaluation based solely on the merit of the work. All submitted manuscripts reporting original research undergo this process. Non-research articles (e.g., editorials, letters to the editor, or book reviews) may be evaluated internally by the Editor-in-Chief without external review.

Step-by-Step Peer Review Process

1.              Manuscript Submission Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal's online submission system. A complete submission includes the blinded manuscript, a separate title page with author details, and any supplementary materials.

2.              Initial Editorial Assessment Upon receipt, the editorial office conducts an initial check for completeness, adherence to submission guidelines, and suitability for the journal's scope in legal research and analysis. Manuscripts that are out of scope, of insufficient quality, missing key sections, or failing plagiarism screening (using tools like Turnitin) may be rejected without further review.

3.              Assignment to Editor Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a Handling Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board).

4.              Double-Blind Peer Review The Handling Editor invites at least two independent external experts in the relevant field of law to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the Editor reserves the right to choose differently to ensure objectivity. Suggested reviewers help identify field experts but are not binding.

5.              Reviewer Reports Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on criteria including originality, relevance to legal scholarship, methodological rigor (where applicable), quality of analysis, comprehensiveness of references, clarity of writing, and ethical standards. They provide detailed comments and a recommendation.

6.              Editorial Decision Based on at least two reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

·       Accept (rare on first submission)

·       Minor Revision (small corrections required)

·       Major Revision (substantial changes needed)

·       Reject (not suitable for publication, even with revisions) Decisions and anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the authors.

7.   Revision and Resubmission If revisions are requested, authors are given a specified timeframe to revise and resubmit, along with a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent for further review or decided upon by the Editor, depending on the extent of changes.

8.   Final Acceptance and Production Once satisfied, the manuscript is accepted. It then undergoes copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and galley proof review by the authors before publication (online and/or print).

Key Features of Our Peer Review

·       Double-Blind Anonymity: To avoid bias, author identities are concealed from reviewers, and vice versa.

·       Plagiarism Check: All submissions are screened for originality.

·       Timeliness: While review times vary due to reviewer availability, the editorial team strives to minimize delays and provide a first decision as efficiently as possible.

·       Ethical Standards: Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest. The journal addresses issues like competing interests, plagiarism, and bias.

This transparent and thorough double-blind peer review process upholds the integrity of legal scholarship published in Legal Research & Analysis, ensuring contributions advance the field through rigorous, unbiased evaluation. For submission guidelines and more details, visit our website.