For Reviewer

Reviewer Guidelines for the Scientific Professional Journal of Law and Ethics in Practice

As a peer reviewer for the Scientific Professional Journal of Law and Ethics in Practice, you play a critical role in maintaining the quality and academic integrity of the journal. Your responsibility is to provide objective, thorough, and constructive feedback on submitted manuscripts. This ensures that only high-quality, well-researched articles are published in the journal. The following guidelines detail your responsibilities and the expectations for the review process.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: All submissions are confidential. As a reviewer, you must not share or discuss the manuscript with others, except with individuals authorized by the journal. The manuscript and its contents should not be used for personal or professional gain.

  • Impartiality and Objectivity: Review the manuscript impartially, based solely on its academic quality, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field of law and ethics. Avoid bias based on personal relationships, conflicts of interest, or your own academic work.

  • Constructive Feedback: Provide clear, constructive, and specific feedback that can help authors improve their manuscript. Point out areas that need clarification or strengthening, and offer suggestions for improvement. Your goal is to help the author refine their work, not just to criticize it.

  • Timeliness: Peer review is a time-sensitive process. Reviewers should complete their assessments within the assigned timeframe (usually 2-4 weeks). If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editor as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be sought.

  • Ethical Standards: Ensure that you adhere to the ethical standards of academic review, which include checking for plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and proper citations. If you suspect misconduct or unethical practices, report them to the editor.

2. Process of Reviewing

  • Initial Evaluation: Upon receiving a manuscript, the first step is to evaluate its overall fit with the journal’s scope and focus. Does the manuscript deal with a relevant topic within the fields of law and ethics? Does it provide new insights or perspectives? You should also assess whether the manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.

  • Content Evaluation:

    • Originality: Is the manuscript original and free from plagiarism or self-plagiarism? Ensure that all sources are properly cited, and that the work brings new contributions to the academic conversation.

    • Relevance: Does the manuscript address significant or emerging issues in law and ethics? Is the topic well-defined and aligned with the journal’s aims?

    • Methodology: For research articles, assess the soundness of the methodology. Are the research questions clearly stated? Are the methods appropriate for addressing these questions? Are the results presented clearly and analyzed correctly?

    • Clarity and Coherence: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured? Does it have a clear argument or thesis that is easy to follow? Is the discussion well-organized, and does it engage critically with the material?

    • Contributions to the Field: Does the manuscript offer new insights, ideas, or solutions to issues in law and ethics? Does it challenge or enhance existing theories or practices?

  • Critical Evaluation: In addition to highlighting strengths, be sure to identify the manuscript’s weaknesses, including:

    • Gaps in the literature review or theoretical framework.

    • Problems with the research design or methodology.

    • Ambiguities in the arguments or conclusions.

    • Lack of clear evidence to support claims made.

    • Issues with clarity, grammar, or structure that hinder readability.

  • Recommendation: After providing detailed feedback, you will be asked to recommend a decision to the editor. Common decisions include:

    • Accept: The manuscript is of sufficient quality to be published without any further revisions (rare).

    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally sound, but some minor revisions are needed before it can be accepted for publication (e.g., fixing grammatical errors or clarifying minor points).

    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, such as reworking sections, improving analysis, or addressing significant gaps in research (e.g., reconsidering the conclusions or re-analyzing data).

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to critical flaws in methodology, argumentation, or relevance to the journal’s scope.

Your recommendation should be based on the overall quality of the manuscript and the degree of work necessary for it to meet the journal’s standards.

3. Writing Your Review: When writing your review, aim to be thorough, clear, and constructive. Here is a suggested structure for your review:

  • Summary of the Manuscript: Begin by briefly summarizing the main points, research questions, and conclusions of the manuscript. This demonstrates that you have understood the content and will help the authors see how you have engaged with their work.

  • Strengths: Highlight the positive aspects of the manuscript. What aspects are particularly compelling? Is the methodology sound? Is the argumentation persuasive? Are there any original insights or novel ideas presented in the paper?

  • Weaknesses: Identify areas where the manuscript could be improved. Provide detailed feedback on any issues with clarity, methodology, or argumentation. Be specific—general comments such as “this section is unclear” are not as helpful as “the analysis in section 3.2 lacks sufficient explanation of how the legal framework applies to the case study.”

  • Suggestions for Improvement: Offer concrete suggestions to help the author improve the manuscript. This may include:

    • Recommendations for further reading or citing additional works.

    • Suggestions for clarifying or re-structuring sections of the paper.

    • Proposals for strengthening the methodology or evidence.

  • Conclusion: End your review with a brief conclusion reiterating your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) and summarizing the main points of feedback.

4. Ethical Considerations

  • Conflicts of Interest: If you have any personal, professional, or academic relationship with the authors that might impair your ability to evaluate the manuscript objectively, disclose this to the editor and recuse yourself from the review process.

  • Plagiarism Check: As part of the review process, you are expected to assess the manuscript for any potential plagiarism or improper use of citations. If you suspect that the manuscript has been plagiarized, inform the editor immediately. Do not raise this issue directly with the author.

  • Handling Sensitive Information: Manuscripts are confidential during the review process. Do not share, discuss, or use the manuscript's content until it has been officially published by the journal. This includes not sharing it with colleagues or other researchers without permission from the editor.

5. Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the given timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks). If you cannot meet this deadline, please inform the editor as soon as possible, so they can assign a replacement reviewer. Delays in reviewing can significantly affect the publication schedule, so it is important to adhere to deadlines.

6. Communication with the Editor

  • Transparency: If you encounter any issues during the review (such as conflicts of interest, concerns about the quality of the manuscript, or any other ethical concerns), communicate these clearly with the editor. Full transparency helps maintain the integrity of the review process.

  • Questions or Clarifications: If you require clarification on any aspect of the manuscript or your role as a reviewer, do not hesitate to reach out to the editor. Open communication will ensure a smooth and efficient review process.

7. Reviewer Acknowledgment and Recognition: Reviewers play an essential role in the peer review process. Your efforts are valued, and the journal aims to recognize the contribution of its reviewers. As a thank-you for your work, you may receive:

  • Acknowledgment in the journal’s annual reviewer list.

  • Access to some journal articles before publication (for personal academic use).

  • In some cases, reviewers may also receive a certificate or letter of appreciation for their service.