Editorial & Peer Review Policy
1. Editorial Review Process:
1.1. The Journal follows a rigorous review process to ensure the highest scholarly contribution and academic integrity. The first step in the review process, is the Editorial Review Process.
1.2. On the receipt of a manuscript, the Associate Editors complete the Initial Review Process. At this stage, the manuscript is primarily assessed against the Submission Guidelines of the Journal, including plagiarism checks, grammatical checks, content, topic and core argument of the manuscript.
1.3. After the completion of the Initial Review Process, the manuscripts are then assessed by our esteemed panel of Editorial Board members. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed against the following criteria:
a. Relevancy of the Topic;
b. Quality of Research
c. Novelty and Scope of Scholarly Contribution
d. Coherence, logical flow and clarity of thought in presentation; and
e. Language.
1.4. During any stage of the Editorial Review Process, the manuscript may be rejected or forwarded for the Peer Review Process, subject to certain changes that may be required to be incorporated by the Author. The same shall be communicated to the Authors. If the Authors are expected to make some changes, the Authors shall be communicated of the same and are expected to resend the manuscript incorporating such changes, within 7 (seven) days of receipt of such communication.
1.5. The Board of Editors reserve the right to reject any manuscript that does not meet the Journal’s academic standards, formatting guidelines, or ethical expectations. The decision of the Board of Editors on all publication matters shall be final and binding.
2. Peer Review Process:
2.1. To ensure the publication of quality content, the Journal follows a double-blind peer review process. The identity of the Author(s) and the Peer Reviewer(s) remain confidential throughout the Review Process.
2.2. The Peer Review Board for a particular Volume or Issue comprises of esteemed experts in the field of international law, who assess the manuscripts for novelty, relevance and their potential to contribute to the scholarly literature in the field, among other criteria.
2.3. The Peer Reviewers also provide suggestions and constructive feedback to the Authors, which must be accordingly revised and incorporated into their submissions.
2.4. The manuscripts which complete the Editorial Review, will be forwarded to the Peer Reviewers.
2.5. The Peer Reviewers will review the manuscript according to the detailed criteria which shall be provided to them.
2.6. The Peer Reviewers shall be provided 2 (two) weeks to complete their review.
2.7. They may recommend rejection or acceptance and provide their feedback in the manuscript and in their Peer Review Report.
2.8. If the Peer Reviewers reject the manuscript, the same shall be communicated to the Authors.
2.9. If the Peer Reviewers deem the manuscript acceptable, subject to certain changes, the Authors will be communicated of the same and the Authors shall be expected to make the required changes. The changes can include substantive and stylistic changes. Publication of the manuscript shall be conditional upon the incorporation of such comments and suggestions by the Author(s) within 7 (seven) days.
2.10. The Editors and Peer Reviewers shall not attempt to rewrite any portion of the manuscript, to fit their preferred style for soundness and clarity. Instead, Editors and Peer Reviewers must provide suggestions for changes that improve clarity for that portion of the manuscript.
2.11. The Editors and Peer Reviewers must refrain from making unfair negative comments or personal remarks and are expected to provide an unbiased, objective and constructive critique of the manuscript.
2.12. The Journal strictly does not edit the Peer Reviewer’s review or comments. However, if at all edits are required, the same shall be notified to the Peer Reviewer and edits to the reviews shall only deal with tone and language, and not change the meaning or intention of the review. Alternatively, instead of editing Peer Reviews, the Journal may decide to include a cautionary note in its decision letter.
2.13. If at all the Peer Reviewer’s review or comments are edited by the Journal, the same shall be clearly communicated to the Author, in the decision letter.
2.14. The Editorial and Peer Review Process is conducted with strict confidentiality and transparency. The Double-Blind Review ensures the anonymity of both, the Authors as well as the Editors and Reviewers. All information pertaining to the Authors’ identities is kept hidden, at all times, from the reviewers of the Editorial Board and the Peer Reviewers.