Peer Review Process

Legal Research & Analysis (Leg. Res. Anal.) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process (by at least two external reviewers) to ensure the highest standards of scholarly quality, originality, and impartiality in published legal research. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

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 (Turnitin) may be rejected without further review.

3. Assignment to Editor
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a Handling Editor (typically the Associate Editor or a member of the Editorial Board). Manuscripts are never assigned to an editor who has a conflict of interest with the authors, and submissions by editors or Editorial Board members are handled by an independent editor.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review
The Associate 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. Where reviewers’ recommendations conflict, the Editor may invite an additional reviewer.

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

  • Publish: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Publish after minor revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication once minor corrections or clarifications are made. Further review is not required.
  • Major revisions: The manuscript has merit but needs substantial revision. The revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal because of fundamental flaws in originality, methodology, analysis, or fit with the journal’s scope.

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.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential by editors and reviewers.
  • 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, normally within 3-4 weeks of submission.
  • Ethical Standards: Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest. The journal addresses issues like competing interests, plagiarism, and bias in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office within 15 days of the decision. Appeals are reviewed independently, and additional expert opinions may be obtained where appropriate.