Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewer

The Modern Journal of Legal Studies adheres to a double-blind peer review policy, which ensures the anonymity of both reviewers and authors. This process is designed to maintain the confidentiality of identities and to guarantee an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers play a pivotal role in supporting the Editor-in-Chief in making informed decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. They also contribute significantly to enhancing the overall quality of research by providing comprehensive reports that include constructive feedback and valuable recommendations for authors. These reports are intended to guide researchers in improving various aspects of their work—including methodology, analysis, and presentation of results thereby elevating the scientific rigour and clarity of the published content.

This review policy is essential for maintaining high academic standards and ensuring the publication of research that effectively contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of humanities and social sciences.

The duties and responsibilities of reviewers encompass various aspects related to the evaluation of the quality of manuscripts submitted for publication, and include the following:

  1. All manuscripts submitted to The Modern Journal of Legal Studies are subject to a double-blind peer review process.
  2. A reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate a particular manuscript, or who is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be appointed.
  3. Reviewers should alert the editor to any potential overlap, plagiarism, or duplication between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted works by the same or different authors.
  4. All submission requests are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who reserves the right to reject any manuscript prior to peer review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks academic rigour, or fails to make a novel scholarly contribution.
  5. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s publication and citation standards are sent to at least two qualified and experienced reviewers in the relevant field. If the two reviewers’ recommendations diverge, a third referee will be assigned to reach a final decision.
  6. Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on their intellectual and academic merit, regardless of the author’s age, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, physical ability, social status, or political orientation.
  7. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief and reviewers to accept or reject a manuscript should be based on the significance, originality, and relevance of the research to the journal’s aims and scope.
  8. Reviewers determine whether a manuscript is acceptable for publication as is, requires minor or major revisions, or should be rejected. A detailed evaluation report must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief outlining the final recommendation.
  9. Review reports are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, who subsequently informs the author of the review outcome without disclosing the reviewers’ identities. Authors are free to submit their papers to other journals only after receiving a formal rejection notice.
  10. In cases where a manuscript is rejected, the author will receive a formal letter of regret from the journal. Authors may only submit their work elsewhere after receiving this official notification.
  11. Manuscript review requests are processed in order of submission, based on the date they were received through the journal’s online submission system.
  12. Reviewers are expected to complete their assigned reviews and submit their reports within three weeks from the date of accepting the review invitation.
  13. In cases of conflict of interest, reviewers must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief in writing.
  14. The Editor-in-Chief shall notify a reviewer in writing if their review assignment has been withdrawn and shall appoint a replacement in cases of conflict of interest, biased evaluation, or failure to meet the review deadline.