1. Introduction
Juris Prudentia SILJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency.
To ensure the publication of original and high-quality scholarly work, the Journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process,
whereby the identity of both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) remains anonymous throughout the review process.
The peer review system is intended to ensure fairness, objectivity, and scholarly rigor in the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
2. Objectives of Peer Review
The peer review process seeks to:
- Assess the originality, quality, and significance of the submitted work.
- Ensure the academic and methodological soundness of manuscripts.
- Provide constructive feedback to authors for improvement of their work.
- Maintain the credibility and reputation of the Journal.
- Promote fairness, impartiality, and transparency in editorial decision-making.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon receipt, every manuscript shall undergo a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board to determine whether:
- The submission falls within the scope of the Journal.
- The manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines.
- The submission satisfies minimum standards of originality and academic quality.
- The manuscript successfully clears the plagiarism screening process.
The Editorial Board may decline a manuscript at this stage if it is found unsuitable for review.
4. Double-Blind Review Process
After successful preliminary screening, the manuscript shall be forwarded to two independent subject experts for review.
Key Features:
- The identity of the author(s) shall not be disclosed to the reviewer(s).
- The identity of the reviewer(s) shall not be disclosed to the author(s).
- Reviewers shall evaluate the manuscript solely on academic merit.
- All information relating to the manuscript shall be treated as confidential.
Where the recommendations of the reviewers differ substantially, the Editorial Board may refer the manuscript to a third reviewer.
5. Criteria for Evaluation
Reviewers shall ordinarily evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:
Key Features:
- Originality and novelty of the research.
- Relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal.
- Clarity of research objectives and arguments.
- Adequacy of legal analysis and methodology.
- Accuracy and adequacy of citations and references.
- Contribution to legal scholarship and contemporary discourse.
- Overall quality of writing, structure, and presentation.
6. Recommendations by Reviewers
Upon completion of the review, reviewers may recommend any one of the following:
- Accept without Changes.
- Accept with Minor Revisions.
- Accept with Major Revisions.
- Reject.
The reviewers may also provide specific suggestions for improvement, which shall be communicated to the author(s) without revealing the identity of the reviewer.
7. Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding publication shall rest exclusively with the Editorial Board. In arriving at its decision, the Board shall take into consideration:
- The reviewers' reports.
- The author's response to suggested revisions.
- Compliance with the Journal's editorial and ethical standards.
The decision of the Editorial Board shall be final and binding.
8. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- Conduct the review objectively and impartially.
- Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents.
- Identify relevant published work not cited by the author(s), where appropriate.
- Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest.
- Complete the review within the stipulated timeline.
Reviewers shall not use any unpublished material contained in the manuscript for personal research or gain.
9. Responsibilities of Authors During Review
Authors are expected to:
- Cooperate with the review process in good faith.
- Respond to reviewer comments and revision requests within the prescribed time.
- Submit a revised manuscript clearly indicating changes made, where required.
- Refrain from attempting to identify or contact reviewers.
10. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review shall be treated as confidential documents.
The Editorial Board and reviewers shall not disclose or discuss any manuscript with
any person other than those directly involved in the publication process.
11. Review Timeline
The Journal shall endeavour to complete the review process within the following indicative time frame:
| Stage |
Approximate Duration |
| Initial Editorial Screening |
7 Days |
| Plagiarism Screening |
3 Days |
| Double-Blind Peer Review |
15–21 Days |
| Revision by Author (if required) |
7–15 Days |
| Final Editorial Decision |
7 Days |
While every effort shall be made to adhere to these timelines, delays may occur due to the availability
of reviewers or the complexity of the manuscript.
12. Conflict of Interest
A reviewer or editor who has a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship that
may affect impartiality shall immediately disclose the same and recuse themselves from the review or editorial process.
13. Ethical Considerations
The peer review process shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness, objectivity, confidentiality,
and academic integrity. Any attempt to compromise the integrity of the review process may result in rejection of the manuscript
and such other action as the Editorial Board may deem appropriate.
14. Amendments
The Editorial Board reserves the right to amend or modify this Peer Review Policy from time to time in order to
align with evolving best practices in academic publishing.
15. Effective Date
This Policy shall come into force from the date of its adoption by the Editorial
Board of Juris Prudentia SILJ and shall apply to all manuscripts submitted thereafter.
Approved by :
Editorial Board
Juris Prudentia SILJ
The Official Journal of Shambhunath Institute of Law
