Guidelines for Reviewers
The review process of this journal applies the double-blind review, which means both authors and reviewers do not know each other. Therefore, the review process will be under the reviewers' expertise.
All reviewers are highly recommended to review the substance of the manuscript(s) and bring the academic debate in their comments.
Following to the journal's standard that aims to publish the high-quality manuscript as our means to add increasingly legal knowledge into the global conversation, reviewers are strictly advised to follow these guidelines:
The review process comprises the title, abstract, introduction, analysis, conclusion, and reference of the manuscript.
1. The title should be written concisely no more than 16 words.
2. The abstract should be written concisely between 250-300 words and it should cover a general overview, objective(s), methods, finding(s), conclusion, and recommendation (if any).
3. The content should be written concisely at least 7,000 words.
a. The introduction should include the general overview, previous research(es), theoretical contribution, aim(s) of the study, and the structure of the manuscript.
b. The analysis should cover the debate as it has been introduced and formulated in the introduction, particularly it should refer to the structure of the manuscript.
c. The conclusion should answer the aim(s) of the study, not resume or rewrite the main point(s) provided in the analysis section.
4. Reference. We apply the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation 7th edition (McGill Guide). Ensure (if possible) to suggest the author(s) refer to this citation style in footnotes and bibliography.