International Journal for Research in Law and Human Rights (IJRLHR) has a double-blind peer review system. It is expected of the reviewers to properly assess every submission and offer constructive comments to the authors.
Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
The reviewers have to thoroughly examine the manuscript and determine its quality, originality, relevancy, and contributions. The reviewer has to mention the strong and weak points of the paper along with possible ways for improvement.
Before Reviewing
Before accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers should consider:
- Is the topic within your area of expertise?
If the manuscript is outside your area of knowledge, please decline the review request. - Do you have enough time to complete the review?
Reviews should normally be completed within one week. If you cannot meet the deadline, please inform the editor as soon as possible. - Is there any conflict of interest?
Reviewers should inform the Editor about any personal, professional, financial, or other conflict before reviewing the manuscript.
During the Review
Reviewers should consider the following:
Originality and Quality
- Does the manuscript offer anything innovative?
- Does it contribute anything to the literature on law and human rights?
- Is the research question significant?
- Is the manuscript informed by the current literature on the topic?
Organization and Format
- Is the manuscript organized well?
- Does it meet the journal’s guidelines for authors?
- Are the title, headings, tables, figures, and references all correct?
Title and Abstract
- Does the title clearly describe the research?
- Does the abstract reflect the manuscript?
Introduction
- Is the research problem presented clearly?
- Is the objective or research question clearly stated?
- Is the literature review adequate in the introduction?
Methodology and Analysis
- Is the research method suitable for this investigation?
- Is the methodology well-explained in the paper?
- Is there enough information available to evaluate this research?
- Are legal sources, evidence, case law, legislation or any other resources used correctly in the paper?
Results and Findings
- Is the information presented clearly?
- Is the analysis and interpretation appropriate?
- Do the conclusions follow from the findings?
Discussion and Conclusion
- Do the findings cover the stated aims of research?
- Is there enough evidence supporting the key points?
- Is the contribution to the field clearly explained in the study?
Figures, Tables, and Other Materials
In case any figures or tables are provided, it is necessary for the reviewer to verify their accuracy, relevance, and clarity.
Language and Clarity
The manuscript should be clear and understandable. If language problems make the research difficult to follow, reviewers should mention this in their comments rather than rewriting the manuscript themselves.
Scope
Reviewers should check whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of IJRLHR.
Comments to Authors
The reviewers must give well-structured and respectful responses. The responses should be such that they aid the authors to learn about the strengths and areas of improvement of their paper.
Reviewers should consider:
- The contributions and strengths of the manuscript.
- Weaknesses or problems of the manuscript.
- Whether enough information is given.
- Whether the research objectives have been met.
- What major changes are necessary for the paper to be published.
- Minor suggestions.
- Readability.
- Literature review.
- Research design and analysis.
- Findings and conclusions.
- Implications.
Reviewer Recommendation
After completing the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:
- Accept
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Reject
In the end, final decision is taken by the Editor based on the suggestions provided by the reviewers and the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers' Responsibilities
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review helps the Editor and editorial team make informed publication decisions and also helps authors improve their manuscripts.
Promptness
Reviewers who are not qualified to review a manuscript or cannot complete the review on time should inform the Editor and withdraw from the review.
Confidentiality
Ensure that manuscripts received for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share or discuss the manuscript with others without permission from the Editor.
Objectivity
Reviews should always be fair and based on the quality of the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should point out important sources that have been missed and inform the Editor if they notice significant similarity or overlap with another published work.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest. They should not use confidential information or ideas obtained during peer review for personal or professional benefit.