Peer Review Process
Review System
Yaqeen Journal for Legal Studies adopts the Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby the identities of authors are hidden from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are hidden from authors, to ensure objectivity and integrity in the evaluation process.
Review Stages
1. Initial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor conducts an initial screening of the manuscript to verify:
- Relevance of the topic to the journal scope
- Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines
- Completeness of all required elements
- Absence of obvious publication ethics violations
Expected duration: 3–5 business days
2. Plagiarism Screening
All manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism screening using internationally recognized detection software (iThenticate / Turnitin). Manuscripts with a similarity ratio exceeding 20% are rejected, with exceptions for references, legal texts, and properly cited quotations.
Expected duration: 2–3 business days
3. Peer Review
The manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers with expertise in the research topic. If one reviewer rejects the manuscript, it is sent to a third reviewer for an additional opinion. Reviewers are asked to evaluate:
- Originality and scientific significance of the research
- Soundness of the research methodology
- Accuracy of data and findings
- Clarity of objectives and conclusions
- Quality of language and academic style
- Proper documentation of references
Expected duration: 4–6 weeks
4. Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revisions: Publish the manuscript as submitted
- Accept with minor revisions: Minor changes that do not require additional review
- Accept with major revisions: Substantial revisions and re-review required
- Reject: Manuscript not accepted for publication
Expected duration: 3–5 business days after receiving reviewer reports
5. Revisions and Review
Authors are given a specific period (usually 2–4 weeks) to make the required revisions. In the case of major revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the reviewers to confirm all comments have been addressed.
Reviewer Selection Criteria
- Hold a PhD in the relevant field
- Academic rank equal to or higher than the author, with consideration of research experience
- Research experience and publications in peer-reviewed journals
- Affiliated with recognized academic institutions
- No conflict of interest with the authors
- Diverse geographic and institutional backgrounds
Review Ethics
Reviewers are committed to:
- Full confidentiality of reviewed manuscripts
- Objectivity and integrity in evaluation
- Providing constructive and detailed feedback
- Disclosing any conflicts of interest
- Meeting specified deadlines
- Not using manuscript information for personal benefit
Transparency
The journal is committed to informing authors of the status of their manuscripts at all stages of review, and to providing complete reviewer reports (with identities removed) to help authors improve their research.