Peer Review Process

At LAREH LAW REVIEW, we uphold a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research that advances legal scholarship. Our peer-review system follows international standards, guided by ethical practices, to maintain the integrity and objectivity of our journal.

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their suitability for the journal. This includes evaluating whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with basic standards of academic writing. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revisions or outright rejected at this stage.

Key Considerations in the Initial Screening:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and focus areas
  • Originality of the research
  • Proper formatting and adherence to submission guidelines
  • Compliance with ethical standards, such as plagiarism checks

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Blind Peer Review

LAREH LAW REVIEW follows a blind peer-review process, ensuring that the identity of the authors remains anonymous to the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. This policy promotes impartiality and reduces the potential for bias.

  • Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers who are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Reviewers are tasked with providing a thorough assessment of the manuscript’s content, originality, methodology, and overall contribution to the field of law.
  • Reviewers are expected to deliver constructive feedback, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and providing recommendations for improvement where necessary.

Peer Review Criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Clarity of objectives and research questions
  • Soundness of the methodology and analysis
  • Relevance and clarity of legal arguments
  • Quality and depth of literature review
  • Contribution to legal scholarship or practice
  • Compliance with ethical standards, including handling of sources, data, and citations

3. Reviewers’ Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, each reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revisions: The manuscript is accepted as is, with no further changes required.
  • Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions before acceptance. The authors are requested to address specific comments or clarifications.
  • Major revisions: The manuscript needs significant changes before it can be reconsidered for publication. The authors are required to revise the manuscript substantially, responding to reviewer comments.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

4. Editorial Decision

The editorial team, based on the reviewers’ reports, makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript outright if it meets all the criteria.
  • Request revisions: If the manuscript requires revisions, the authors will receive consolidated feedback from the reviewers. Authors must revise their manuscript accordingly and submit a revised version for further review or final decision.
  • Reject the manuscript if it is deemed unsuitable for publication, either due to insufficient quality or failure to meet the journal's standards.

5. Revision Process

Authors who are requested to revise their manuscripts must address the reviewers’ comments in a timely manner. A detailed response document, indicating how each comment has been addressed, should accompany the revised submission. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review, depending on the nature of the revisions.

6. Final Acceptance

Once the reviewers and the editorial team are satisfied with the revisions, the manuscript is accepted for publication. The corresponding author will be notified of the final acceptance and the manuscript will proceed to the copy-editing and production stage.

7. Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo a final editorial review, including language editing, formatting, and proofing. Authors will receive the proofs for final approval before publication. The manuscript will be published in the next available issue of LAREH LAW REVIEW.

8. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing or discussing the content of manuscripts with anyone outside the peer-review process. Any breach of confidentiality may lead to disciplinary action in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.

9. Post-Publication

LAREH LAW REVIEW welcomes post-publication discussions, such as letters to the editor, and corrections where necessary. Authors are encouraged to engage with feedback from the academic community once their work is published. Additionally, any concerns raised post-publication regarding research integrity or ethical issues will be thoroughly investigated following COPE guidelines.