Peer Review Policy

The journal follows a structured peer review process as outlined in the workflow chart to ensure transparency, quality, and academic integrity.

1. Manuscript Submission
   Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s official submission system or designated email.

2. Initial Editorial Screening
   The editorial office conducts an initial assessment to verify the manuscript’s scope, formatting, completeness, and compliance with journal guidelines.

3. Plagiarism Screening
   All submissions are checked using recognized plagiarism detection tools. Manuscripts exceeding acceptable similarity thresholds are rejected.

4. Evaluation by Editor-in-Chief
   The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript and determines its suitability for peer review.

5. Peer Review by Subject Experts
   Selected manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts who assess originality, methodology, relevance, clarity, and scholarly contribution.

6. Reviewer Reports and Editorial Decision
   Reviewer recommendations are analyzed by the Editor-in-Chief to make the final decision: accept, revise (minor or major), or reject.

7. Revision and Re-evaluation
   Authors revise their manuscripts based on reviewer feedback. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further evaluation.

8. Final Editing and Publication
   Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, and typesetting before final publication.

The International Journal of Judicial Law (IJJL) is dedicated to publishing high-quality legal research that is both original and impactful. To ensure the scholarly integrity of our publications, every manuscript undergoes a rigorous and transparent evaluation process. We strictly follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to maintain global standards of academic excellence.

The Double-Blind Review Model

Our journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model, which is the gold standard for unbiased scholarly publishing:

1. Identity Protection: The names, affiliations, and contact details of the authors are removed from the manuscript before it reaches the reviewers.

2. Reviewer Anonymity: The identity of the reviewers remains undisclosed to the authors throughout and after the process.

3. Objective Evaluation: This ensures that papers are evaluated solely on the strength of their legal arguments, research methodology, and accuracy of data, rather than the reputation or background of the author.

Step-by-Step Editorial Workflow
Phase I: Initial Internal Assessment (Desk Review) As soon as a manuscript is submitted, the Editorial Office conducts a "Technical Pre-Check" within 7-10 working days:

1. Scope Verification: Does the research align with the themes of Judicial Law and Jurisprudence?

2. Plagiarism Screening: We use iThenticate® and Turnitin® to ensure originality. Any paper with a similarity index above 15% is immediately rejected.

3. Basic Formatting: Checking for adherence to the journal's template and the Bluebook (21st Edition) citation style.

4. Decision: If the paper fails these checks, it is "Desk Rejected" and the author is notified.

Phase II: Independent Peer Evaluation Articles that pass Phase I are assigned to a minimum of two (2) independent external reviewers.

1. Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in specific legal domains (e.g., Constitutional Law, International Law, or Corporate Jurisprudence).

2. Detailed Analysis: Reviewers spend 4-6 weeks analyzing the manuscript's legal reasoning, the novelty of the research, and the accuracy of the cited precedents.

Phase III: Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers Reviewers are provided with a standardized "Review Form" to grade the paper on:

1. Originality: Does the work add something new to existing legal knowledge?

2. Legal Validity: Are the interpretations of statutes and case laws correct?

3. Methodology: Is the research design appropriate for the legal question being asked?

4. Clarity: Is the paper written in professional, clear, and concise legal English?

Phase IV: Post-Review Decision Making Once both reviewer reports are received, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the feedback to make a final decision. The possible outcomes are:

1. Acceptance: The paper is ready for publication.

2. Minor Revision: The author is given 7–14 days to make small corrections.

3. Major Revision: Significant flaws are identified. The author must revise and the paper will go for a second round of review.

4. Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the scholarly requirements of IJJL.

Ethical Responsibilities & Confidentiality

1. Confidentiality: Every manuscript is treated as a confidential document. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using or sharing any part of the unpublished data.

2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a personal or professional relationship with the research topic or the author (if accidentally identified).

3. Timely Feedback: We respect our authors' time and ensure that reviewers provide constructive feedback within the stipulated deadlines.

1. First Decision (Desk Review): Within 10 Days.

2. Review Reports: Within 45 Days.

3. Final Publication Decision: Within 60–75 Days from the date of submission.

In cases where one reviewer recommends "Acceptance" and the other recommends "Rejection," the Editor-in-Chief will appoint a third independent adjudicator (a member of the Editorial Board) to provide a final deciding opinion.