Peer Review Policy

In General

Submissions designated as articles undergo a double-blind (anonymous) reviewing procedure to assess their scholarly merit prior to acceptance. Under this policy, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process to guarantee scholarly objectivity.

Every article for consideration is first reviewed by the Editorial Board, which decides whether to Accept, Conditionally Accept or Reject a submission. Once the submission is accepted by the Board, it shall be referred to two (2) reviewers for peer review. Reviewers are chosen for their expertise in the field and scholarly contribution. The author of the submission shall remain anonymous to the reviewers and identifying information such as names and affiliations are removed from the manuscript before the peer reviewers receive the manuscripts.

Reviewers are expected to conduct peer review objectively, professionally, and in a timely manner, with due regard to research ethics. They are provided a feedback sheet where they write their comments and recommend either: Outright Publication, Publication with Revisions, or Rejection. A manuscript receiving two Outright Publication recommendations shall ordinarily be offered publication, while those requiring revisions shall undergo a second-round Editorial Board deliberation after revisions. Reviewer recommendations are considered, but the Editorial Board retains final authority over all publication decisions.

This Policy is aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and SCOPUS best practices.

Scope

This policy applies to all submissions designated as articles. While otherwise exempted notes may also undergo the Peer Review Process for them to be published as articles. All other notes, essays, features, comments, book reviews, and Forum pieces shall not undergo peer review.

Type of Review

The Journal employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both the author/s and reviewers will remain anonymous to each other throughout the process.

Process

  1. The submission is deliberated upon by the Editorial Board following the Rules on Article Deliberations based on relevance of the topic, substance of arguments, quality of research, and originality of the work.
  2. Once accepted, the Chair selects two (2) Reviewers from the Journal’s Peer Review Network in consultation with the Editorial Board  and shall assign the submission to the Article Editor who will coordinate with the Reviewers.
  3. Once the Reviewers accept the invitation, the Article Editor sends the manuscript to the Reviewers. Reviewers are given two (2) weeks to review the submission.
  4. Reviewers shall write the Recommendation Report using the template provided. The Report shall include the comments for the author, the confidential comments for the Editorial Board/Article Editor, and the Recommendation.
  5. Recommendations:
    1. If both Reviewers approve the paper for Outright Publication, the Editorial Board proceeds to offer Publication to the Author.
    2. If both Reviewers approve the paper for Publication with Revisions, the Editorial Board returns the paper to the author along with the Reviewers’ comments. The Author is then given two (2) weeks to revise the manuscript, unless the author requests additional time. The Board can then re-deliberate on approving the paper for publication. The same rule applies in case one Reviewer approves the paper for Outright Publication, while the other Approves with Revisions.
    3. If both Reviewers Reject the paper, then the Editorial Board shall likewise reject (subject to certain exceptions). However, if one Reviewer rejects the paper, while the other recommends Outright Publication or Publication with Revisions, then the Board shall re-deliberate on approving/rejecting the paper for publication.
  6. The Review process may take up to four (4) weeks from initial referral for Peer Review and may be extended up to six (6) weeks upon the approval of the Chair.
  7. Once the Editorial Board approves the submission and extends an Offer of Publication to the Author, the Article will be subjected to the Editorial Process.
  8. Author/s and Reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers shall be selected for their scholarly work, subject matter expertise, and research record. The Editorial Board shall continuously expand and diversify the network of qualified reviewers and must match reviewers with the scope or topic of the manuscript as much as possible. Preference may be accorded to alumni editors of the Philippine Law Journal, and other recognized academic legal journals.

Criteria

At the minimum, Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

  1. Should hold a J.D., LL.B., LL.M., J.S.D., Ph.D., or any relevant graduate or postgraduate degree in law or a closely related discipline to the subject matter of the submission;
  2. Must have a relevant publication record, teaching experience, law journal editorial experience, or recognized expertise in the field of the submission;
  3. Must maintain high standards of professionalism, confidentiality, and academic integrity;
  4. Must not have been found guilty of plagiarism, academic misconduct, or intellectual dishonesty; and
  5. Must not have any personal, financial, or academic conflicts of interest with the author/s.

Conflict of Interest

A Reviewer must not have any conflict of interest with any of the authors, which include:

  1. Personal Relationships or Rivalries – A close personal relationship with (including consanguinity or affinity up to the fourth civil degree), intimate relationship with, or personal rivalry with the author/s;
  2. Recent Collaboration – Having worked, collaborated, or published with the author/s in the 12 months prior to submission (or within a reasonable period as determined by the Editorial Board);
  3. Financial Interests – Financial gain or loss from the acceptance, rejection, or publication of the work;
  4. Topic-Related Prior Work – Having authored prior work on the same topic that may be reasonably perceived as creating bias for or against the submission, or having authored work that is the subject of critique in the submitted manuscript; and
  5. Inability to Provide Unbiased Review– Any situation in which the reviewer believes they cannot provide an objective, unbiased, and confidential assessment.

Any Reviewer found to not have met the criteria shall be disqualified from participating in the Peer Review Process for the particular submission and the recommendation shall be disregarded, unless the Editorial Board decides otherwise for highly meritorious and exceptional reasons. Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interests or perceived bias for or against the submission or its author/s.

Editorial Independence

All decisions on the acceptance or rejection made by the Editorial Board are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit and the quality of the submission. While reviewer feedback is considered, the Editorial Board retains full and final authority over all publication decisions.