Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are essential to the quality and integrity of the Journal of Law and Social Politics (JLSP). Reviewers help editors reach fair decisions and help authors strengthen their work. JLSP operates a double-blind peer review process, and all reviewing is conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

To access a manuscript assigned to you, log in to the journal's submission system using the link at the top of the journal website.

Before you accept an invitation

Before agreeing to review, please consider:

  • Expertise. Does the manuscript fall within your area of competence? Accept only if you can provide a thorough, high-quality assessment.
  • Conflict of interest. Do you have any personal, financial, professional, or academic relationship with the authors or the work that could bias your judgment? If so, disclose it to the editor when you respond, and decline if the conflict is significant.
  • Time. A careful review takes time. Accept only if you can meet the review deadline; if you cannot, please say so promptly.

Please respond to the invitation as soon as possible, even to decline, a delayed response slows the process for the author. If you decline, suggestions of alternative qualified reviewers are welcome.

Confidentiality

A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Do not share it, discuss it, or use its data or ideas for any purpose, and do not involve anyone else in the review without the editor's prior approval. This obligation continues after the review is complete and regardless of the final decision. Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to conduct or write the review, as uploading a manuscript to an external AI service breaches confidentiality.

Evaluating the manuscript

Assess the manuscript against the following criteria, and support each judgment with specific reasons so that the editor and author understand your reasoning:

  • Originality and significance. Does the work address a clear gap and make a novel, meaningful contribution to economic development, particularly in rural, local, or community contexts? Does it fit the journal's focus and scope?
  • Title and abstract. Is the title concise and accurate? Does the abstract state the objective, method, results, and conclusion?
  • Introduction. Are the background, state of the art, gap analysis, and objectives clearly established, with the novelty justified?
  • Method. Is the design described in enough detail to be replicated? Are the data sources, participants, instruments, and analysis appropriate and sound?
  • Results and discussion. Are the findings processed and clearly presented, interpreted rather than merely described, connected to prior research, and honest about implications and limitations?
  • Conclusion. Does it answer the research objectives without merely repeating the abstract or introducing new material?
  • References. Are they relevant, current, and complete, following the journal's citation style?
  • Writing and presentation. Is the manuscript clear, logical, and concise, with useful tables and figures?
  • Ethics. Where the study involves human participants, is appropriate ethical approval and consent reported? Do you see any sign of plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication?

Writing your comments

Provide two kinds of feedback in the review form:

  • Comments to the author. Give specific, constructive, and courteous guidance for each major section. Explain both strengths and weaknesses and how the author might address them. Do not include your name or any identifying details, and avoid personal or dismissive remarks, the goal is to help the author improve.
  • Confidential comments to the editor. Use this channel for candid observations, including any suspicion of misconduct (plagiarism, fraud, undisclosed conflicts, ethical concerns). Provide as much detail as possible. These comments are not shared with the author.

Any suggestion that the author cite additional work must be for genuine scholarly reasons, never to increase the citations of you or your associates.

Making a recommendation

Conclude with one of the following recommendations, accompanied by a written report that justifies it:

  • Accept Submission: suitable for publication as is, or with negligible changes.
  • Revisions Required (minor revisions): publishable after specific, limited corrections.
  • Resubmit for Review (major revisions): has potential but needs substantial revision and a further round of review.
  • Decline Submission: not suitable for the journal; explain why clearly.

Your recommendation is advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision, weighing all reviews and, where necessary, seeking additional opinions. Reviewers are notified of the final decision through the submission system.

After your review

Thank you for contributing your expertise. Please continue to treat the manuscript and any associated files as confidential, and do not share them or information about the review without the editor's authorization.