Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Judicial Studies (JJS) undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly contribution of the published articles.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess whether the manuscript:
- fits within the journal’s scope on judicial institutions, court practices, and the application of positive law through judicial processes;
- complies with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements;
- meets basic academic standards.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
JJS implements a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.
Each manuscript that passes the initial screening will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:
- originality and novelty of the research;
- relevance to judicial studies and court-based legal research;
- methodological rigor and analytical depth;
- clarity of argumentation and structure;
- contribution to legal scholarship.
Review Outcomes
Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial decision may be:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
- Reject
Authors will receive reviewers’ comments and may be asked to revise their manuscript accordingly.
Final Decision
The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief, considering the reviewers’ reports and the revised manuscript submitted by the authors.
