Peer Review Policy for the Journal of Iranian International Legal Studies (IIntbar)
1. Purpose
The peer review process is designed to uphold the scholarly rigor and integrity of the Journal of Iranian International Legal Studies (IIntbar). It aims to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of published articles through independent evaluation by experts in the field.
2. Types of Peer Review
- Double-Blind Peer Review: This is the primary method used for most submissions. Both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to ensure unbiased assessment.
- Open Peer Review: In certain cases, such as for invited articles or special issues, open peer review may be utilized, where the identities of authors and reviewers are known to each other.
3. Selection of Reviewers
- Expertise: Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated expertise and experience in the relevant legal fields and methodologies.
- Diversity: The journal strives to maintain a diverse pool of reviewers representing various legal perspectives and backgrounds.
- Conflict of Interest: Potential reviewers are screened for any conflicts of interest with the authors or subject matter of the manuscript.
4. Reviewer Responsibilities
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and not disclose their content to anyone without the editor’s permission.
- Objectivity and Impartiality: Reviews should be objective, constructive, and focused on the scholarly merit of the work. Personal biases or conflicts of interest should not influence the evaluation.
- Thoroughness: Reviewers should carefully read the manuscript, assess its originality, significance, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the legal field.
- Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed-upon timeframe.
5. Reviewer Reports
- Structure: Reviewer reports should include a summary of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, specific recommendations for improvement, and an overall assessment of its suitability for publication.
- Constructive Feedback: Feedback should be clear, specific, and actionable, aiming to help the authors improve their work.
6. Editorial Decisions
- Based on Reviews: Editorial decisions are made based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the editor’s assessment of the manuscript.
- Types of Decisions: Decisions include acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, or rejection.
- Communication: Authors are informed of the decision and provided with the reviewers’ comments, while maintaining reviewer anonymity.
7. Appeals Process
- Grounds for Appeal: Authors may appeal a rejection decision if they believe there was a significant misunderstanding or error in the review process.
- Procedure: Appeals should be submitted in writing to the editor, outlining the grounds for appeal and providing any supporting evidence.
- Resolution: The editor will review the appeal and may seek additional input from reviewers or editorial board members before making a final decision.
8. Ethical Considerations
- Plagiarism: The journal utilizes plagiarism detection software to ensure the originality of submitted manuscripts.
- Duplicate Submission: Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is strictly prohibited.
- Authorship Disputes: In cases of authorship disputes, the journal will follow COPE guidelines to investigate and resolve the issue.
9. Confidentiality and Transparency
- Confidentiality: All information related to the peer review process, including reviewer identities, is kept confidential.
- Transparency: The journal is committed to transparency in its peer review practices and will publish information about its policies and procedures.
Important Note: Please adapt this draft to align with your journal’s specific scope, practices, and legal requirements. Consider consulting with legal counsel to ensure full compliance with relevant regulations and ethical standards.