A reviewer at IJULR is an independent subject expert appointed by the editor to critically evaluate a manuscript before publication. The reviewer’s main responsibility is to provide an objective, fair, and constructive academic assessment that supports editorial decision-making and helps authors improve the quality of their research.

Confidentiality & Integrity

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript at all stages of the review process. No part of the content may be shared, discussed, or used for any personal or academic benefit. Reviewers must strictly uphold the integrity of the double-blind peer review system.

Acceptance of Review Invitation

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when they have adequate subject expertise relevant to the manuscript and can complete the review within 7–15 days. Reviewers must decline immediately if any conflict of interest exists, including personal, institutional, financial, or prior collaboration with the author within the last 3–5 years.

Manuscript Evaluation Process

The manuscript must be read carefully at least twice. The first reading is for understanding the overall argument, structure, and scope. The second reading is for detailed critical evaluation of legal reasoning, methodology, citation accuracy, originality, and academic contribution, including identification of plagiarism or unsupported claims.

Evaluation Criteria

The review must be based on core academic standards, including:

• Originality of research
• Strength of legal reasoning
• Relevance to law and allied disciplines
• Quality of sources and citations
• Clarity and coherence of writing
• Overall academic contribution

All judgments must be strictly based on academic merit without bias related to the author’s identity, institution, nationality, or background.

Structure of Review Report

The review report must include a brief summary of the manuscript, followed by an overall assessment, and then clearly separated major and minor concerns. Comments must be specific, constructive, and supported with references to relevant sections or pages. Vague criticism or personal remarks are not acceptable.

Editorial Recommendation

Reviewers must recommend one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Each recommendation must be supported with clear academic justification, especially in cases of rejection or major revision to ensure transparency and fairness in the editorial process.

Plagiarism & Ethical Responsibility

Although plagiarism detection software is used by IJULR, reviewers also have a responsibility to manually identify plagiarism, including paraphrased content, idea duplication, or self-plagiarism. Any suspected unethical content must be reported confidentially to the editor with clear references. Reviewers must not contact the author directly at any stage.