Instructions for Reviewers

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process is essential to maintaining the academic and scholarly integrity of the St. Joseph’s Law Review. Reviewers are requested to critically read and assess manuscripts within their area of expertise and offer honest, respectful, and constructive feedback that enables authors to improve their work and uphold the journal’s publication standards.

Core Responsibilities of the Reviewer

  • Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, relevance, methodology, and scholarly contribution.
  • Provide a detailed, unbiased, and well-reasoned report that reflects academic integrity.
  • Make a clear recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) supported by specific observations.
  • Ensure confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Highlight any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or misuse of sources.
  • Refrain from personal or defamatory comments; critiques should focus solely on the content.

Before You Accept the Review Invitation

Please reflect on the following:

  • Does the manuscript fall within your area of legal or interdisciplinary expertise?
  • Do you have the time to complete the review within the specified time frame (usually 2–3 weeks)?
  • Do you have any conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or their institutions)? If yes, please inform the editor and decline the review request

During the Review

While reviewing the manuscript, please consider the following:

General Guidelines

  • Maintain a professional and impartial tone.
  • Provide evidence-based commentary, including references to support your feedback where relevant.
  • Avoid disclosure or usage of the manuscript’s content for any purpose other than the review.
  • If you suspect misconduct or plagiarism, report it confidentially to the editor.

Reviewer Etiquette & Timeline

  • We strive for an efficient and fair review process. Reviewers are expected to respond within the agreed timeline (typically within 2–3 weeks).
  • If a delay is anticipated, please inform the editorial team promptly to ensure authors are kept informed or alternative reviewers can be approached.

Confidentiality and Feedback

  • Comments addressed to the editor may be submitted separately but should not contradict the comments shared with the author.
  • The reviewer’s identity will remain anonymous to the authors as part of our double-blind peer review process.
  • Please submit the completed review using the designated review form or portal (or via email if instructed).