Responsibility of Reviewers
Peer reviewers play a central and critical role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarship published in the International Journal of Law Management & Humanities. The reviewer's assessment directly informs the editorial decision and provides authors with the expert feedback necessary to improve their work. IJLMH selects reviewers on the basis of their subject-matter expertise and expects all reviewers to conduct their assessments in an ethical, objective, and constructive manner, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
The values that underpin every peer review
When to accept — and when to decline — a review invitation
A reviewer should accept an invitation to review only if they have the subject-matter expertise required to carry out a proper, rigorous assessment of the manuscript assigned to them. Reviewing a manuscript outside one's area of expertise is as harmful to the process as declining to review — an uninformed review misdirects the editorial decision and fails the authors.
Reviewers are free to decline review invitations at their discretion. IJLMH recognises that most reviewers are engaged full-time in their own professional and academic work, and that reviewing represents a voluntary scholarly contribution. A reviewer who declines an invitation should, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer with the appropriate expertise, to assist the editorial team in sourcing a qualified assessor.
Where a reviewer has accepted an invitation and subsequently discovers that they cannot complete the review, or that a conflict of interest exists of which they were not previously aware, they must notify the editorial team immediately at submission@ijlmh.com. Prompt notification allows the editorial team to assign an alternative reviewer without unnecessary delay to the author.
All reviewers at IJLMH are selected on the basis of their qualifications and level of expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript assigned to them. Reviewer assignments are made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor, following a check for potential conflicts of interest.
All manuscripts received for review are strictly confidential documents.
The duty of confidentiality is among the most fundamental obligations of a peer reviewer. A manuscript submitted for review represents the unpublished, confidential work of its authors. That work — and all information about it — must be treated with the same care and discretion a reviewer would wish their own unpublished work to receive.
Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the contents of a manuscript under review with any colleague, student, assistant, or other third party without the express written authorisation of the Editor-in-Chief. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague in any aspect of the review — for example, to obtain an opinion on a specific technical point — they must obtain the editor's permission first, and must ensure that any such colleague is bound by the same confidentiality obligations.
The confidentiality obligation applies to the manuscript itself, to all reviewer reports and communications, and to the fact that the reviewer was invited to review the manuscript. It applies regardless of whether the reviewer accepted or declined the invitation, and continues indefinitely after the review process has concluded.
Under IJLMH's double-blind peer review process, reviewers must also take care not to identify themselves — or their institutional affiliation — in their review comments, as this would compromise the anonymity of the review.
How to carry out an effective and ethical peer review
A reviewer's principal task is to provide a critical, expert, and constructive assessment of the manuscript's academic quality and suitability for publication in IJLMH. The review must be thorough, honest, and grounded in the scholarly literature of the relevant field. It must not be superficial, perfunctory, or influenced by considerations other than the academic merit of the work.
Reviewers should read the manuscript in full before beginning their assessment. The first reading should be used to form an initial impression of the work as a whole — its argument, its methodology, its contribution to the field, and its clarity of expression. Subsequent readings should be used to identify specific strengths and weaknesses, to check the accuracy of factual and legal claims, and to assess the quality of the citations and references.
Review comments should be structured, specific, and actionable. Where a reviewer identifies a weakness — whether in the argument, the methodology, the citations, or the writing — the comment should explain the nature of the weakness clearly and, where possible, indicate how it might be addressed. Vague comments such as "the argument is weak" or "the writing needs improvement" without specific examples or suggestions are not helpful to the editor or to the author.
Reviewers must review the manuscript that has been assigned to them. They must not delegate the review in whole or in part to a colleague, student, or other person, except with the prior written permission of the Editor-in-Chief. If permission is granted to involve another person, the names of all contributors must be disclosed to the editorial team. The use of generative AI tools to write or substantially assist in writing a peer review report is not permitted.
What reviewers are expected to assess
Reviewers should consider the following questions when assessing a manuscript submitted to IJLMH. These criteria are consistent with the Journal's Peer Review Process and with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
When reviewers must declare a conflict and decline
A conflict of interest arises whenever a reviewer has a personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship with the authors of a manuscript that could reasonably be perceived to compromise their objectivity in conducting the review. Under IJLMH's double-blind peer review policy, reviewer assignments are made on the basis of anonymised manuscripts — however, a reviewer may sometimes be able to infer the authors' identity from the subject matter, citations, or other contextual clues in the manuscript.
Where a reviewer suspects the identity of the authors and that suspicion raises a potential conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editorial team and refrain from reading further until a response is received. If the conflict is confirmed, the reviewer must decline the review. If the conflict is not confirmed, the reviewer may proceed — but only after receiving explicit guidance from the editorial team.
Reviewers who discover a conflict of interest after commencing the review must notify the editorial team immediately, return the manuscript without retaining any copies, and confirm that no information from the manuscript has been used for any purpose. Reviewers must not attempt to manage a conflict of interest themselves — all conflicts must be declared and handled by the editorial team.
Identifying missing sources and reporting suspected misconduct
Part of the reviewer's responsibility is to assess the manuscript's engagement with the existing scholarly literature. Reviewers are expected to draw on their expert knowledge of the field to identify relevant prior works that the authors have not cited — whether inadvertently or deliberately.
Where a reviewer identifies substantial similarity between the manuscript and other published or unpublished work, or has any other reason to suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or any other form of misconduct, they must report this to the editorial team in confidence and without delay. Such concerns must never be raised directly with the authors, and must not be discussed with colleagues.
All concerns reported by reviewers are investigated by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement and the relevant COPE flowcharts. Reviewers who report concerns in good faith are protected by the confidentiality of the review process and will not be identified to the authors.