Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Law and Policy (IJLP) is committed to upholding the highest standards of peer review integrity. The journal follows a structured and transparent review process to ensure the quality and originality of the published articles. The peer review process consists of three phases: Initial Review, Peer Review Assessment, and the Final Decision by the Editor-in-Chief.

Phase 1: Initial Review

Upon submission, the Section Editor conducts an initial review to assess the suitability of the manuscript. This review is based on the following criteria:

  1. Language: The article must be grammatically sound and free from spelling errors.

  2. Typical Length: The manuscript should be between 8,000 to 10,000 words, excluding the bibliography.

  3. Paragraph Structure: Each paragraph should contain 8–10 sentences and be fully justified.

  4. Originality: The manuscript must be original, with a plagiarism threshold not exceeding 20%.

  5. Title: The title should not exceed 12 words.

  6. Author Details: The submission must include the author's full name (First Name-Last Name), affiliated institution, valid email address, and ORCID ID.

  7. Abstract: The abstract should be a single paragraph, no longer than 150 words, without references.

  8. Keywords: Authors should provide 5-8 keywords, each consisting of one or two words.

  9. Article Format: The manuscript must follow the prescribed structure:

    • I. Introduction

    • II. Methodology

    • III. Results

    • IV. Discussion (with relevant subheadings)

  10. Conclusion: The conclusion should not exceed four paragraphs.

  11. References: Citations and in-text references must adhere to APA 7th edition format, with all references listed alphabetically.

  12. Tables and Figures: All tables and figures must be properly numbered.

The Section Editor will decide within 24 hours whether the article proceeds to the peer review stage. If the manuscript does not comply with journal policies, it will be rejected with detailed feedback. Authors can revise and resubmit based on the editor’s recommendations.

Phase 2: Peer Review Assessment

If the manuscript passes the initial review, it is assigned to peer reviewers for a comprehensive assessment. The reviewers evaluate the article based on the following categories:

  1. Abstract (10 Marks)

    • Clarity of research aim and purpose (3 marks)

    • Logical and comprehensive presentation of findings (3 marks)

    • Relevance of recommendations based on research findings (4 marks)

  2. Introduction (20 Marks)

    • Background context (2 marks)

    • Clearly defined research problem (2 marks)

    • Comprehensive literature review (7 marks)

    • Identification and justification of research gap (2 marks)

    • Well-defined research objectives (2 marks)

    • Clear and answerable research questions (2 marks)

    • Justification of study significance (3 marks)

  3. Methodology (20 Marks)

    • Appropriateness and justification of research approach (4 marks)

    • Description and validity of data collection methods (4 marks)

    • Measures to ensure research credibility (4 marks)

    • Suitability of data analysis techniques (4 marks)

    • Ethical considerations (4 marks)

  4. Results (20 Marks)

    • Clear presentation of statistical results, tables, and charts (4 marks)

    • Logical presentation of findings supporting research objectives (12 marks)

    • Addressing research questions effectively (4 marks)

  5. Discussion (20 Marks)

    • Interpretation of findings (10 marks)

    • Explanation of theoretical and practical implications (5 marks)

    • Logical and well-supported recommendations (5 marks)

  6. Conclusion (10 Marks)

    • Thorough explanation of study context (2.5 marks)

    • Clear presentation of central arguments (2.5 marks)

    • Analysis of broader implications (2.5 marks)

    • Feasibility of proposed future research directions (2.5 marks)

Peer Review Decision Categories

Based on the assessment, reviewers provide their recommendations:

  1. Acceptance: The article proceeds to a second round of peer review for final validation.

  2. Revision Required: The manuscript is sent back to the author for modifications. If revised, it will undergo another initial review before proceeding to a second peer review.

  3. Rejection: The manuscript is returned to the author with an explanation.

Phase 3: Editor-in-Chief’s Final Decision

After the peer review assessment, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reviewers' feedback and decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The possible outcomes are:

  1. Final Acceptance: The article is approved for publication.

  2. Further Revision: Authors must address additional concerns before final acceptance.

  3. Rejection: The article is not suitable for publication.

The IJLP ensures that every submission undergoes a rigorous and transparent review process to maintain high academic standards and research integrity.