Reviewer Guidelines

Legal Research & Analysis operates a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers to promote impartial, constructive feedback. Reviews are typically due within 2 weeks. If you need an extension, please contact the editorial office promptly.

As a reviewer, you play a key role in evaluating the manuscript's originality, rigor, clarity, and contribution to legal scholarship. Please provide detailed, objective, and courteous comments to help authors improve their work and assist the Editor-in-Chief in making an informed decision.

Review Criteria

When assessing the manuscript, please evaluate the following sections:

1. Title and Abstract

· Title: Does it clearly, concisely, and accurately reflect the content, scope, and contribution of the article? (Preferably ≤20 words)

· Abstract: Is it well-written, standalone, and informative? Does it effectively summarize the research problem, objectives, methodology (if applicable), key findings, and implications?

2. Introduction

· Does the introduction clearly explain the importance and uniqueness of the topic?

· Is sufficient background provided?

· Is the research problem or question clearly stated?

· Does it identify a gap in existing legal scholarship or an unanswered question that the article addresses?

3. Literature Review / Previous Studies / Theoretical Framework

· Does the review adequately survey relevant prior work?

· Is the article sufficiently novel, in-depth, and interesting for publication?

· Are gaps in the literature clearly identified and linked to the current study's objectives?

· Is the flow of ideas logical, well-developed, and properly supported?

4. Methods (where applicable, e.g., empirical or comparative studies)

· Is the approach (doctrinal, empirical, comparative, etc.) clearly described and appropriate for the research question?

· Are data sources, selection processes, and analytical methods explained in sufficient detail to allow replication?

· If new methods are introduced, are they adequately detailed?

· For empirical work: Is sampling appropriate? Are tools, materials, and measurements accurately described?

5. Analysis / Results / Discussion

· Is the core legal analysis rigorous, logical, and well-supported by evidence (cases, statutes, scholarship)?

· Are arguments presented clearly and in a structured manner?

· For empirical articles: Are results presented logically, without duplication across text, tables, and figures? Are statistical analyses (if used) appropriate and correctly reported?

· Does the discussion critically engage with the findings, compare them to prior studies, and explain any contradictions or novelties?

6. Conclusions

· Does it directly answer the research question or objectives?

· Is it consistent with the analysis and findings?

· Are limitations acknowledged?

· Does it highlight the study's contributions to legal scholarship and suggest avenues for future research?

7. References

· Are citations complete, accurate, and formatted according to the journal's Chicago Author-Date style?

· Are references current (preferably including sources from the last 10 years) and relevant?

· Do in-text citations match the reference list?

8. Overall Quality and Ethics

· Originality: Is the work original and not overly similar to existing publications?

· Clarity and Language: Is the writing clear, professional, and free of discriminatory language?

· Structure and Length: Does the manuscript follow logical flow and adhere to reasonable length guidelines?

· Ethical Issues: Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or data fabrication?

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

· Maintain strict confidentiality—do not discuss the manuscript with others or use its content for your own research.

· Declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with authors) to the Editor immediately.

Recommendation Options

After completing your review, please provide one of the following recommendations, supported by detailed comments for the authors and separate confidential notes for the Editor (if needed):

· Accept Submission: Ready for publication without changes (rare on first review).

· Revisions Required: Minor revisions needed (e.g., clarification, minor edits).

· Resubmit for Review: Major revisions required; revised manuscript should be re-reviewed.

· Resubmit Elsewhere: Not suitable for this journal but potentially for another venue.

· Decline Submission: Significant flaws that cannot be addressed through revision.

Reviewer Guidelines

Make a Submission

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

Recommended Tools