Peer Review Process
Academic papers that are submitted to the Indique Law Journal are first assessed by the Journal Managing team and editors of the student editorial board who decide whether or not the paper is suitable for peer review, in relation to the scope of the journal and the academic quality of the paper. If the paper is judged suitable for peer review, the managing editor sends it by e-mail to two independent experts for a double blind peer review. Reviewers remain anonymous for the author and the author’s name is removed from the manuscript under review.
We try to make the review process as quick as possible. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if a paper is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the managing editor then decides whether the article should be accepted as it is, revised or rejected. In case of revisions, a final decision on publication will be made after resubmission.
Editors’ and reviewers’ screening criteria:
Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:
- Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
- Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
- Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
- Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
- Language: Is the text well written? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.