Peer Review

Contemporary Law Annual Review applies a peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, relevance, and academic contribution of every manuscript submitted to the journal. The peer-review process is intended to maintain scholarly standards and support the publication of high-quality articles in the fields of law, legal studies, public policy, governance, human rights, legal reform, and contemporary socio-legal issues.

All manuscripts submitted to Contemporary Law Annual Review will be evaluated through editorial screening and peer review before publication. The review process is conducted objectively, fairly, confidentially, and professionally.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript will first be checked by the editorial team to ensure that it complies with the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript template, citation style, writing format, and publication ethics.

At this stage, the editor may reject manuscripts that are not relevant to the journal’s scope, do not follow the author guidelines, contain serious formatting problems, have a high similarity index, or do not meet the basic academic standards required by the journal.

Similarity Check

All submitted manuscripts may be checked using similarity detection software. Manuscripts that indicate plagiarism, duplicate publication, excessive similarity, improper citation, or unethical use of sources may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected by the editorial team.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original and that all sources used in the research are properly cited.

Peer Review Method

Contemporary Law Annual Review uses a peer-review system in which submitted manuscripts are reviewed by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic of the manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, relevance, legal reasoning, methodological accuracy, clarity of analysis, validity of argument, contribution to legal scholarship, and the suitability of references.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope.
Originality and novelty of the research or legal analysis.
Clarity of research objectives and problem formulation.
Suitability of research method or legal approach.
Strength of legal reasoning and argumentation.
Accuracy and depth of analysis.
Contribution to legal studies, legal reform, public policy, or socio-legal development.
Use of relevant laws, regulations, court decisions, theories, and previous studies.
Clarity of writing, structure, tables, figures, and presentation.
Appropriateness and relevance of references.
Compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the review process, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Accepted without revision.
Accepted with minor revision.
Accepted with major revision.
Resubmission for review.
Rejected.

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection is made by the editor based on reviewers’ comments, manuscript quality, author revisions, ethical considerations, and the journal’s editorial policy.

Revision Process

Authors who receive revision requests must revise their manuscripts according to the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors. The revised manuscript must be resubmitted within the time specified by the editorial team.

Authors are expected to provide a clear response to reviewers’ comments and explain the changes made in the revised manuscript. If authors disagree with certain reviewer comments, they must provide a clear, polite, and academic explanation.

Editorial Decision

The editorial team has the authority to make the final decision on all submitted manuscripts. Editorial decisions may include acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection.

The editor’s decision is final and is based on academic quality, reviewer recommendations, ethical considerations, manuscript suitability, and the journal’s publication standards.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Contemporary Law Annual Review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are not allowed to disclose, discuss, copy, distribute, or use the manuscript content for personal purposes before publication.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and must not share the manuscript with other parties without permission from the editor.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest related to the manuscript, authors, institutions, funding sources, or research topic. If a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from handling or reviewing the manuscript.

Review Timeline

The peer-review process generally takes several weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, editorial workload, and the quality of revisions submitted by the authors.

The journal is committed to conducting the review process as efficiently and professionally as possible while maintaining academic quality, fairness, and ethical standards.

Final Statement

By submitting a manuscript to Contemporary Law Annual Review, authors agree to follow the journal’s peer-review process and accept editorial decisions made based on academic evaluation, reviewer recommendations, publication ethics, and the journal’s editorial policy.