At a glance
- Review type
- Double-blind
- Reviewer identity
- Never disclosed to authors
- Confidentiality
- Complete, and continuing after review
- Conflicts of interest
- Declare and decline
- Unpublished material
- May not be used
Accepting or declining an invitation
- Accept only if you have the expertise to assess the manuscript properly and no conflict of interest.
- Decline if you lack the expertise or have a conflict, and where possible suggest another reviewer.
- If, after accepting, you find you cannot finish the review or discover a conflict, tell the editorial team at once at submission@ijlsi.com.
Confidentiality
- Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not show it to, or discuss it with, anyone (including colleagues and students) without the Editor-in-Chief’s written permission.
- Do not keep or copy it beyond what the review needs, and do not use it in your own work without the authors’ permission.
- Do not discuss the review in public, including on social media or at conferences.
- Do not identify yourself or your institution in your comments, which are shared with the authors.
These duties continue after the review ends, and apply even if you decline after receiving the manuscript.
Conducting the review
- Read the whole manuscript, more than once, before forming a view.
- Judge the work on its academic merit alone, never on who you think the authors are.
- Make every comment specific and constructive: point to the passage concerned and, where you can, suggest how to fix it.
- Do not ask authors to cite your own work, or a colleague’s, unless it is genuinely relevant.
- Write the review yourself. Do not pass it to anyone else without the Editor-in-Chief’s written permission, and do not use AI tools to write it.
What to assess
- Does the manuscript make an original and significant contribution?
- Is it within the Journal’s scope, law and the legal sciences?
- Is its method (doctrinal, empirical, comparative or analytical) sound and suited to the question?
- Are its legal propositions and factual claims accurate and properly sourced?
- Is it clearly structured, with an argument that runs from introduction to conclusion?
- Does it engage critically with the existing scholarship?
- Are its citations complete, accurate and in a consistent style (the Bluebook is recommended)?
- Is its language clear and precise?
What reviewers must not do
- let the authors’ supposed identity or institution influence the assessment;
- reject a manuscript because of personal views about its topic or method, or because its conclusions differ from their own;
- make personal remarks about the authors; or
- give vague criticism that does not refer to the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
Declare any personal, professional, financial or institutional connection with the authors, and decline the review. This includes family members and close friends, colleagues at the same institution, supervisors, supervisees and recent collaborators (roughly the last three years), any financial interest in the outcome, and a strong documented rivalry with the authors.
If you believe you have recognised the authors and this raises a conflict, stop reading and tell the editorial team. Declare every possible conflict and let the editorial team decide; do not judge for yourself whether it is significant.
Sources and suspected misconduct
Point out relevant published work that the authors have not cited. If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabrication, false authorship or any other misconduct, tell the editorial team in confidence at submission@ijlsi.com, quoting the Manuscript ID. Do not raise it with the authors. Every report is investigated under the publication ethics statement, and a reviewer who reports in good faith is never identified to the authors.