Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts objectively and critically based on their field of expertise. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments, academic recommendations, and professional feedback to improve the quality, originality, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript submitted to International Journal of Justice and Legal Systems (IJJLS).

Reviewers are encouraged to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, evaluate the relevance and novelty of the research, and identify possible improvements regarding theoretical framework, methodology, legal analysis, and scientific contribution.

Important Review Points

  • Originality and Novelty; Ensure that the manuscript offers original ideas, legal novelty, and significant scholarly contribution in the field of justice, legal systems, comparative law, human rights, and interdisciplinary legal studies.
  • Relevance to Journal Scope; Evaluate whether the manuscript is consistent with the focus and scope of IJJLS, including justice studies, comparative legal systems, constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, human rights law, legal policy, judicial systems, international law, legal sociology, and interdisciplinary legal studies related to contemporary legal and justice issues.
  • Research Problem and Objectives; Assess whether the legal issues, research questions, and objectives are clearly formulated and academically relevant.
  • Quality of Legal Analysis; Examine whether the discussion is analytical, critical, systematic, and supported by relevant legal theories, legislation, jurisprudence, human rights principles, and scholarly references.
  • Methodological Accuracy; Review the suitability of the research methods, legal approaches, data sources, and analytical techniques used in the manuscript.
  • Use of Recent References; Ensure that the manuscript uses recent, credible, and relevant academic references, particularly from reputable journals and legal publications.
  • Consistency Between Sections; Verify that the title, abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion are coherent and interconnected.
  • Contribution to Legal Scholarship; Assess whether the manuscript contributes to the development of legal science, legal policy, justice systems, or legal practice.
  • Language and Academic Writing; Ensure that the manuscript is written in clear, coherent, and academically appropriate English.
  • Ethical Compliance; Identify possible plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or other publication ethics violations.

Before Reviewing

Ensure that the manuscript corresponds with your area of expertise. If the topic is outside your academic competence, please notify the editor immediately and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.

Ensure that you have sufficient time to complete the review process. The review process should generally be completed within two weeks. If additional time is required, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

Disclose any potential conflict of interest before conducting the review process. Any academic, institutional, financial, or personal conflict that may influence the objectivity of the review should be reported to the editorial office.

Review Process

In reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:

Title; Does the title clearly represent the content and focus of the manuscript?

Abstract; Does the abstract accurately reflect the objectives, methods, novelty, and findings of the research?

Introduction; Does the introduction adequately explain the research background, legal issues, research gap, urgency, and objectives of the study?

Originality and Novelty; Does the manuscript provide original and innovative scholarly contributions in the fields of justice, legal systems, comparative law, human rights, or interdisciplinary legal studies?

Scope; Is the manuscript consistent with the focus and scope of International Journal of Justice and Legal Systems (IJJLS)?

Methodology; Are the research methods, legal approaches, sources of data, and analytical methods clearly described and academically appropriate?

Results and Discussion; Are the legal arguments, analyses, and discussions presented critically, systematically, and supported by relevant legal theories, regulations, jurisprudence, and scholarly references?

Conclusion; Does the conclusion adequately answer the research objectives and demonstrate the contribution or implications of the study?

References; Are the references relevant, recent, and sufficient to support the academic quality of the manuscript?

Tables and Figures; Are tables, charts, and figures relevant, clearly explained, and easy to understand?

Writing Style

The manuscript should be written in clear, coherent, and academically appropriate English.

The manuscript should contain analytical, systematic, and critical legal discussion.

The manuscript should demonstrate relevance to contemporary legal and justice issues.

The manuscript should be interesting, understandable, and academically valuable for readers and researchers.

Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts under review must be treated confidentially.

Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical misconduct, reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office with sufficient explanation.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, fair, and professional recommendations to assist editors in making publication decisions.

Final Review Recommendation

Reviewers are requested to complete the review process within the specified review period and provide clear recommendations regarding the manuscript, including acceptance, revision, or rejection. Constructive feedback for authors and confidential comments for editors should be clearly distinguished.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office if you have any questions or difficulties during the review process.