The International Journal of Law and Business Studies (IJLBS) follows a double-anonymous, also known as double-blind, peer review process. Peer review assesses the originality, relevance, academic quality, and contribution of a manuscript before a publication decision is made.
The process includes initial editorial screening, independent external review, consideration of revisions, and a final editorial decision.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Each submission is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal’s aims and scope, meets the basic submission requirements, and is suitable for scholarly review.
The assessment considers the manuscript’s relevance, completeness, clarity, originality, and compliance with journal policies. A manuscript may be returned for preliminary corrections or declined without external review if it falls outside the scope, does not meet the minimum academic requirements, or raises a significant ethical concern.
Manuscripts that complete the initial screening satisfactorily proceed to external peer review. Passing this stage does not imply acceptance.
2. Selection of Reviewers
Each manuscript proceeding to external review is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
Reviewers are selected according to their knowledge of the topic, suitability for the research approach, and independence from the work. They must disclose relationships or interests that could affect their assessment and decline the assignment where impartial review is not possible.
3. Double-Anonymous Review
Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. Manuscript files supplied for review are prepared to protect author anonymity.
Editors handling the submission may have access to author information where necessary for editorial administration and decision-making.
Review reports are confidential and are not published with the article. Relevant comments are communicated to authors without identifying the reviewers.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers provide a reasoned and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Depending on the discipline and type of contribution, they consider:
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
- Clarity and significance of the research question or scholarly objective
- Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
- Appropriateness of the methodology or research approach
- Quality of the evidence, analysis, interpretation, or legal reasoning
- Engagement with relevant literature and authoritative sources
- Clarity, coherence, and organisation
- Whether the conclusions are supported by the work presented
The emphasis may vary between empirical research, doctrinal legal studies, conceptual papers, reviews, and case studies.
5. Reviewer Recommendations
Following assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
- Minor Revisions: Limited amendments are required to address specific concerns.
- Major Revisions: Substantial amendments are required before further consideration.
- Reject: The manuscript has significant shortcomings that prevent publication.
Recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not constitute acceptance. Where reports differ substantially, or further specialist assessment is needed, the editor may seek an additional independent review.
6. Revision and Re-review
Where revisions are requested, authors receive the relevant editorial and reviewer comments and a deadline for resubmission. The time allowed depends on the nature and extent of the changes required. Authors may request additional time before the deadline.
A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a suggestion, they should provide a reasoned explanation.
Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor. Substantial revisions may be returned to one or more reviewers. Further revision may be requested where concerns remain unresolved.
An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
7. Editorial Decision
The responsible editor, acting on behalf of the Editorial Board, makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, reviewers’ reports, and any revised submission and author response.
The outcome may be acceptance, further revision, or rejection. Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations. Publication charges or other financial considerations do not influence review or guarantee acceptance.
8. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated review material as confidential. Unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage or shared without appropriate editorial permission.
An editor or reviewer whose interests could compromise impartial judgement must withdraw from the assessment. The manuscript will be assigned to another suitably qualified person.
9. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members
Submissions by editors, editorial board members, or others closely associated with the journal are subject to the same review standards as other manuscripts.
The individual concerned must not participate in reviewer selection, assessment, or the publication decision for their own submission. An independent editor will handle the manuscript.
10. Special Issues
Where special issues are published, scholarly contributions undergo the same external peer review and editorial assessment as regular submissions.
The Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for the content of all special issues, which must fall within the journal’s aims and scope. Special issue articles will be clearly labelled.
Guest editors’ credentials will be checked and approved before appointment. Guest editors work under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial board members.
A guest editor’s own submission must be handled independently, without their involvement in its assessment or acceptance. Articles authored or co-authored by guest editors must not exceed 25% of the special issue’s total articles.
11. Material Subject to Peer Review
Original research articles, review articles, case studies, and policy papers submitted as scholarly contributions undergo external peer review.
Material assessed through a different editorial procedure, such as editorial notices or corrections, will be clearly identified and will not be presented as externally peer-reviewed research.
12. Review Period
IJLBS aims to communicate the first editorial decision following external peer review within 4–6 weeks of submission. This decision may be acceptance, a request for revisions, or rejection. Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions or additional review may take longer.
For manuscripts accepted after peer review, IJLBS aims to complete publication within 8–12 weeks of the original submission. This period includes editorial assessment, peer review, author revisions, and publication preparation.
These timeframes are estimates, not guarantees. The time required depends on the subject, reviewer availability, the extent of revisions, manuscript complexity, and authors’ response times. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
Reviewers are requested to respond within the timeframe specified in their invitation. Where a significant delay occurs, the editorial office will inform the corresponding author of the manuscript’s status.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal’s publication process.