Peer Review Process
Publication of articles in Nagari Law Review (NALREV) is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and/or peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field. NALREV acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.
Initial evaluation of manuscripts
The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted. Although rare, yet it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the NALREV. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.
Type of peer review
Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three reviewers who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is blind peer review.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work
- Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Editor’s decision is final.