Peer Review Process

LegalSpectrum: Diverse Perspectives in Law Science employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of each manuscript submitted.

Review Workflow:

1. Initial Screening
   The editorial team reviews all submitted manuscripts to check for scope relevance, plagiarism, and basic formatting requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria will be returned without external review.

2. Double-Blind Review
   Eligible manuscripts are sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

3. Review Criteria
   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

   • Originality and contribution to legal scholarship

   • Interdisciplinary relevance and integration

   • Theoretical and/or empirical rigor

   • Clarity of argumentation and writing

   • Relevance of references and legal framework

4. Review Outcomes
   Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editorial decision will be:

   • Accept

   • Minor Revision

   • Major Revision

   • Reject

5. Revision and Final Decision
   Authors are given a specified time (usually 2–4 weeks) to revise the manuscript. Revised submissions may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor.

6. Publication
   Accepted manuscripts will undergo copyediting and layout formatting before online publication in the forthcoming issue.

⏱ Estimated Timeline:

• Initial Editorial Screening: 7 days

• Peer Review Process: 4–6 weeks

• Revision & Final Decision: 2–3 weeks after revision submission

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare any conflicts of interest, and provide constructive, unbiased feedback.