Peer Review Process

We welcome you to submit your manuscripts to the Journal of Law and Justice- the tribune to promote radical research in law.

The Journal of Law and Justice ​​will acknowledge receipt of the original research work sent by the authors. The journal employs double-blind peer review of manuscripts. Manuscripts must therefore be anonymized by the author(s). Information about the author(s) must be provided in a separate document.

Each submitted manuscript experiences a laborious selection process to ensure the highest quality and academic integrity standards. Our revered Editorial Team precisely reviews each manuscript, followed by a thorough evaluation from at least two double-blind reviewers.

  • Internal Review

Each paper undergoes an internal review by a relevant editorial board/ team member to determine whether it is properly formatted and follows publication ethics. The member would also consider whether basic research protocols have been followed in research design/analysis.  A proper desk review process has been employed where articles must pass a desk rejection/acceptance system before sending to an expert in the field. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are not sent out for external review. We value the input of our reviewers, who may also provide insightful comments and suggestions to further refine and strengthen your work. After receiving the reviewers' recommendations, our Editorial Team makes an informed decision on publishing, postponing, or rejecting manuscripts.

  • External Review

After having screened through the internal review, the authors are requested not to include their personal information in the text of the paper and are further instructed neither to submit their papers for publication anywhere nor to post the same on any website to protect their identity from the potential reviewers. Reviewers are authorized to refuse to review the paper if they come to know about the identity of the author(s) of a paper referred to them for peer review. External reviewers generally review and comment on the basis of originality, quality of presentation, research design, data/results/conclusions, and the usefulness of the study as a valuable scholarly contribution. During an external review, if reviewers find that the research paper has major flaws that cannot be cured through a major revision, they can recommend rejection of the paper.

Resubmission of paper (after peer review)

Nearly every published paper goes through at least one revision. Authors should take a revision request as good news and an opportunity to learn and improve the quality of their research paper. They are directed to carefully revise the paper according to the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid unnecessary interruption in the review process. Generally, when the review report is provided, each review point must either be incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript or an appropriate response is expected from the Author to justify with reason/s for not doing so. Author(s) are suggested to be very careful regarding the accuracy and completeness of the reviewers’ suggested points to avoid further review and delay (further revision can be recommended if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily).

Return/Rejection of Manuscript:

The manuscript is returned to the author(s) if:

  • It does not meet the basic publication requirements of the Journal.
  • It doesn’t fall within the ambit of the scope of the journal.
  • It is found that the manuscript has also been submitted for publication anywhere else
  • The identity of the author is found to be mentioned or disclosed somewhere with the intention to take advantage during the selection process of the manuscript.
  • The feedback from the reviewers identifies major flaws in the manuscript which cannot be rectified.
  • There is an unnecessary delay on the part of the author(s) in resubmitting the Manuscript after revision or submitting the draft without following the suggestions of the reviewers about the areas to improve as no chance for a second revision will be provided to the author(s).


Phases and estimated time in the Peer Review Process
The peer review process can be broadly described as follows:


Steps of the Review Process

Estimated Time


Submission of Paper



First Internal Review

3-4 weeks


External Review

4-5 weeks


Communication of Review Reports to Authors for minor/major Revision

1 week


Submission of the Revised Paper

4-8 weeks


Second Internal Review (to assess whether reviewers suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily)

2-4 weeks


Intimation of Final Decision

1 week