Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines — Selaparang: Journal of Law Studies (SEJALS)

Selaparang: Journal of Law Studies (SEJALS) relies on the expertise and dedication of its peer reviewers to maintain high standards of scholarly rigor, integrity, and originality in legal research. Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating manuscripts and providing constructive feedback to authors.

1. Core Principles of Peer Review

  • Double-Blind Integrity: SEJALS operates a Double-Blind Peer Review process. Reviewers must maintain complete anonymity and refrain from attempting to identify the authors of the manuscript.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript, data, or analysis for their own research or personal gain prior to publication.
  • Objectivity & Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be conducted objectively, impartially, and professionally. Critique should focus on the academic content, methodology, and legal reasoning, accompanied by constructive suggestions for improvement without personal bias or hostile language.

2. Conflict of Interest & Availability

  • Declining an Invitation: Reviewers must decline a review invitation immediately if:
    • They suspect a conflict of interest (financial, personal, collaborative, or institutional ties with the authors).
    • The manuscript falls outside their field of legal expertise.
    • They are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation reports within the agreed timeframe (typically 2 to 4 weeks). If an unexpected delay arises, reviewers should notify the Managing Editor promptly to request an extension.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

  • Originality & Contribution: Does the article offer a novel legal perspective, address a significant legal issue, or make a valuable contribution to legal scholarship?
  • Methodology & Legal Reasoning: Is the research design, socio-legal methodology, or doctrinal analysis sound, rigorous, and clearly explained?
  • Use of Sources: Are primary legal materials (statutes, court decisions, treaties) and secondary literature (scholarly journals, books) relevant, up-to-date, and accurately cited?
  • Structure & Clarity: Is the manuscript logically organized, clearly written, coherent, and aligned with academic writing standards?

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Upon completing the evaluation on the OJS portal, reviewers must select one of the following recommendations for the Managing Editor:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major, substantive revisions and will undergo a second round of peer review after revision.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript lacks sufficient academic merit, originality, or rigor for publication.