Peer-Review Process

The Journal of Human Rights, Law, and Policy employs a double-blind peer-review system to ensure objectivity, scholarly rigor, and ethical fairness. Each submitted manuscript undergoes the following review stages:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: The editorial team assesses the manuscript for scope alignment, formatting, and originality (via iThenticate).

  2. Reviewer Assignment: Two or three expert reviewers in the field are invited to conduct a comprehensive review. Neither the reviewers nor the authors are aware of each other’s identities.

  3. Review Criteria: Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

    • Originality and contribution to the field

    • Theoretical grounding and methodological rigor

    • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

    • Clarity, coherence, and scholarly presentation

  4. Review Decision: Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editorial decision may be:

    • Accept without revision

    • Accept with minor revisions

    • Revise and resubmit

    • Reject

Authors will receive detailed reviewer feedback and are expected to submit revised versions with a response letter if revisions are required. The typical review timeline ranges from 4 to 8 weeks.