For Reviewers

Information for Reviewers

Law & Society in Transition is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, scholarly rigour, originality, and interdisciplinary engagement. As a peer-reviewed journal, the quality and fairness of the review process are central to the journal's mission.

Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the scholarly quality, relevance, originality, and contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Purpose of Peer Review

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective, constructive, and critical assessment of the manuscript. The review should assist the Editorial Board in making an informed publication decision while helping authors improve the quality and clarity of their work.

Reviewers should consider:

·         Whether the manuscript presents an original argument, insight, finding, or perspective.

·         Whether it makes a meaningful contribution to existing legal or interdisciplinary scholarship.

·         Whether the research advances, challenges, or provides a fresh perspective on existing debates.

·         Whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient engagement with relevant and contemporary literature.

Quality of Research and Methodology

Reviewers should evaluate the appropriateness and rigour of the research approach, including:

·         Clarity of the research question or central argument.

·         Appropriateness of the methodology or analytical framework.

·         Adequacy and reliability of sources, authorities, data, or materials used.

·         Logical development of arguments and conclusions.

·         Consistency between the research objectives, methodology, analysis, and findings.

Legal and Interdisciplinary Analysis

For doctrinal or legal scholarship, reviewers should assess the accuracy, depth, and critical analysis of the legal authorities cited.

For interdisciplinary submissions, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript meaningfully integrates perspectives from relevant disciplines such as sociology, political science, philosophy, economics, history, technology, or public policy, rather than merely referring to them superficially.

Clarity and Organisation

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript:

·         Has a clear and coherent structure.

·         Presents its arguments in a logical sequence.

·         Uses appropriate academic language.

·         Clearly distinguishes between facts, analysis, and the author's own arguments.

·         Provides conclusions that follow from the discussion and evidence presented.

Minor language or formatting issues may be noted, but reviewers should focus primarily on the manuscript's substantive scholarly quality.

References and Citations

Reviewers should assess whether:

·         Relevant primary and secondary sources have been adequately considered.

·         Important authorities or significant scholarship have been omitted.

·         Citations accurately support the propositions for which they are provided.

·         The manuscript demonstrates appropriate engagement with existing scholarship.

Where serious concerns regarding plagiarism, unattributed borrowing, fabricated sources, or other forms of academic misconduct arise, reviewers should confidentially inform the Editorial Board.

Interdisciplinary and Innovative Perspectives

The journal particularly values scholarship that questions established assumptions and explores new possibilities for law, justice, governance, and social order.

Reviewers are therefore encouraged to recognise innovative approaches and should not reject a manuscript merely because its theoretical or methodological approach differs from conventional legal scholarship, provided that the work is academically rigorous and appropriately supported.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers should:

·         Not disclose the contents of the manuscript to others.

·         Not share, reproduce, or distribute the manuscript.

·         Not use unpublished information or arguments from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

·         Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should promptly disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

·         A reviewer should decline the assignment where, for example, they have:

·         A personal or professional relationship with the author that could affect impartiality.

·         A direct academic or professional interest in the manuscript's outcome.

·         A significant competitive or collaborative relationship with the author.

·         Any other circumstance that may compromise independent assessment.

Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports should be professional, respectful, specific, and constructive. Criticism should focus on the manuscript and its scholarly content rather than the author.

Where weaknesses are identified, reviewers are encouraged to explain the concern clearly and, where appropriate, suggest ways in which the manuscript could be strengthened.

Recommendation to the Editorial Board

Reviewers may be asked to provide a recommendation such as:

·         Accept

·         Accept subject to Minor Revisions

·         Revise and Resubmit / Major Revisions

·         Reject

Clear and substantive comments should support the recommendation. The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewer reports and the journal's editorial policies.

Ethical and Academic Integrity

Reviewers should alert the Editorial Board to serious concerns relating to:

·         Plagiarism or substantial unattributed copying

·         Duplicate or redundant publication

·         Fabrication or falsification of data or sources

·         Misrepresentation of legal authorities

·         Significant undisclosed conflicts of interest

·         Other forms of academic or research misconduct

Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Board rather than directly to the author.

Timely Review

Reviewers are requested to complete their reviews within the timeframe communicated by the Editorial Board. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.

Expectations from Reviewers

The Journal values reviewers who bring independent judgment, subject expertise, intellectual openness, and constructive criticism to the review process. Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts not only on conventional grounds but also on their potential to contribute to broader discussions of law, society, technology, governance, and social transformation.

The journal sincerely appreciates the time, expertise, and scholarly contribution of its reviewers. Their independent assessments help ensure that Law & Society in Transition remains a rigorous, inclusive, and forward-looking forum for legal and interdisciplinary scholarship.