Peer-review process

Effective from: 2026-04-17

We use double-blind peer review: neither the reviewer nor the author knows the other's identity during evaluation. This is a baseline academic-integrity standard that protects newcomers to the legal field from bias and seasoned authors from formal status-based reading.

1.Manuscript submission

The author submits a manuscript via their personal account. The system automatically verifies minimal metadata: title, abstract, keywords, primary language and material type. At this stage the manuscript does not yet undergo review — it enters the editorial office.

2.Editorial check

A technical editor verifies alignment with the journal profile, baseline writing quality, plagiarism (using open tools) and structural requirements. Materials that clearly fall outside the journal profile are returned to the author with an explanation within five working days.

3.Reviewer assignment

The editor assigns at least two independent reviewers with relevant specialisation. Author names and affiliations are removed from the version that the reviewer sees. Reviewers' personal data is not disclosed to the author either before or after publication.

4.Review

The reviewer fills out a structured form with criteria: scholarly novelty, methodological correctness, practical significance, writing quality. They add a free-form comment. The review deadline is up to four weeks. Once reviews are received, the editor decides.

5.Editor decision

Possible decisions: accept; accept with minor revisions; return for major revision; reject. The editor passes the anonymised reviews to the author together with a rationale. In contested cases, a third reviewer is engaged.

6.Publication

After final acceptance the material is edited (language and legal copy-editing), converted into stable HTML and PDF, assigned a persistent identifier (a DOI is assigned after Crossref registration) and published in the current issue.

Evaluation criteria

  • Alignment with the journal profile — the intersection of law and education.
  • Scholarly novelty or practical usefulness: a new case, a new interpretation, a new methodology.
  • Methodological correctness: citation of sources, soundness of conclusions.
  • Writing quality: clarity for the practitioner audience.
  • Academic integrity: absence of plagiarism, correct citation, disclosure of conflicts of interest.

Review timeline

The average cycle from submission to decision is up to eight weeks. This includes editorial verification (up to 5 working days), review (up to 4 weeks), editor decision and revisions. Delays exceeding this window are communicated to the author in advance.

Appeals

If the author disagrees with the editor's decision, they may submit a reasoned appeal within 30 days of receiving the decision. The appeal is reviewed by the board chair in co-operation with at least one independent board member. The appeal decision is final.