Peer Review Process
The International Journal of Law Management & Humanities operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. Every manuscript that passes initial editorial screening is independently evaluated by at least two expert reviewers who are specialists in the relevant subject area. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain undisclosed to each other throughout the entire review process.
Anonymity, independence and objectivity
Possible outcomes of peer review
Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief communicates one of the following decisions to the corresponding author. All decisions are made on the basis of the reviewer reports and the Editor-in-Chief's independent assessment of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final and binding in all cases.
Authors are encouraged to read reviewer comments carefully. Where revision is requested, the response to reviewers must be thorough, point-by-point, and submitted within the timeframe communicated by the editorial team. Partial or superficial responses to reviewer comments are not accepted.
Where one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, the Editor-in-Chief may exercise independent judgment, seek a third opinion, or make a final determination on the available evidence. Authors may not request the identity of reviewers or contest a decision on the grounds of reviewer anonymity.
What reviewers assess
Peer reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria. Authors are encouraged to consider these criteria when preparing their submissions. A manuscript that clearly and rigorously addresses each of these dimensions is most likely to receive a favourable recommendation from reviewers.
What authors must do during review
Participation in the peer review process is mandatory for all authors who submit to IJLMH. Submission of a manuscript constitutes an agreement to engage with the process in good faith and to respond constructively to editorial and reviewer feedback.
Authors must ensure, before submission, that the manuscript body contains no author-identifying information of any kind — including names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements identifying the authors, or self-citations phrased in a way that identifies the author. Failure to anonymise the manuscript correctly may result in the manuscript being returned before review begins.
Authors must not attempt to identify, contact, or approach reviewers during or after the review process. Any attempt to interfere with the peer review process — including contacting potential reviewers outside the editorial process, or seeking to identify reviewer identity through any means — constitutes a serious breach of the journal's ethics policy.
What reviewers are required to do
Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of the published scholarship in IJLMH. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and are expected to provide rigorous, objective, and constructive assessments of the manuscripts assigned to them.
All manuscripts received for peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the contents of any manuscript — or the fact that they have been asked to review it — with any third party, without express written authorisation from the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers must not use ideas, data, arguments, or any other information from an unpublished manuscript under review for their own research, publications, or any other professional or personal advantage. This obligation applies regardless of whether the reviewer ultimately accepts or declines the review invitation.
How to prepare your manuscript for double-blind review
To preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process, authors must take care to ensure that the manuscript body submitted for review contains no information that would directly or indirectly identify the authors. The following guidance applies to all submissions.
Author names and institutional affiliations must appear only on the Title Page, which must be submitted as a separate document from the manuscript body. The manuscript body — which is the document forwarded to reviewers — must be entirely free of identifying information.
Self-citations in footnotes or reference lists must be written in the third person and should not be phrased in a way that identifies the author. For example, a reference to the author's own prior work should read: "See Sharma (2022), above n 5" rather than "See my earlier paper...". Where a self-citation would make the author's identity obvious, authors may consider replacing the citation with "citation omitted for review" for the submitted version.
Acknowledgements — which typically identify funding bodies, supervisors, and colleagues — must not appear in the manuscript body submitted for review. Acknowledgements may be reinstated in the accepted version following a positive review decision.
Review integrity and handling of misconduct
IJLMH is committed to maintaining the integrity of the peer review process. Any attempt to subvert, manipulate, or compromise the review process — by authors, reviewers, or any third party — is treated as a serious breach of the journal's publication ethics policy and will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Concerns about the conduct of the review process — including allegations of reviewer bias, breach of confidentiality, or improper influence on the editorial decision — should be reported to the editorial team at submission@ijlmh.com. All reports are investigated confidentially.
The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final. IJLMH does not operate a formal appeals process for rejected manuscripts. Authors who believe that a reviewerhas made a significant factual error — not a difference of scholarly opinion, but a clear and demonstrable error of fact — may draw this to the attention of the editorial team in writing. Such representations will be considered at the editorial team's discretion and do not constitute a formal appeal.