Guidelines for Reviewers

All manuscripts judged to have complied with all the desk review indicators will be peer-reviewed. 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.

Following 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, in addition to the substantial comments in the manuscript, as follows:

1. Is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it?

Yes/No

2. Is the research question interesting?

Yes/No

3. After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?

Yes/No

4. Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework?

Yes/No

5. Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined?

Yes/No

6. Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?

Yes/No

 7. Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing?

Yes/No 

8. Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?

Yes/No

9. Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses?

Yes/No

10. Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s) applied?

Yes/No

11. Does the study have internal and external validity?

Yes/No

12. Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and were they applied appropriately?

Yes/No

 13. Are the results reported in an understandable way?

Yes/No 

14. Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these adequately controlled for in the analyzes?

Yes/No

15. Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research?

Yes/No

16. Does the submission stimulate thought or debate?

Yes/No

17. Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice community?

Yes/No

18. Result

  • Recommended for publication without revision
  • Recommended for publication with minor revision
  • Recommended for publication with major revision
  • Recommended for rejection