Peer Review Policy

Stages:

1. Editorial Screening
   • Manuscripts are reviewed for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, formatting, completeness, and ethical compliance.
   • Submissions may undergo plagiarism and similarity screening before peer review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
   • Eligible manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
   • The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
   • Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, academic quality, methodological soundness, legal analysis, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.
3. Editorial Decision
   • Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:
     • Accept
     • Minor Revision
     • Major Revision
     • Reject

Review Time:

• The journal aims to complete the initial review and peer-review process within approximately 2–4 weeks, although the actual timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and revision requirements.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.
• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased comments to assist authors in improving their work.
• Evaluate manuscripts based on their originality, scholarly quality, relevance, methodology, legal reasoning, and contribution.
• Identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns.
• Avoid using or disclosing unpublished information obtained through the review process.
• Declare any conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the review.