The Journal of Judicial Review (JJR) welcomes original scholarly contributions addressing contemporary legal issues through doctrinal, normative, theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, comparative, and interdisciplinary research. The journal primarily focuses on contemporary business law while also accommodating high-quality research across other relevant fields of law.

Authors are expected to demonstrate scholarly originality, methodological rigor, analytical depth, and a clear contribution to legal knowledge, judicial practice, or policy development. Manuscripts should present well-supported legal arguments rather than merely describe existing laws, regulations, or judicial decisions.

JJR publishes original research articles only. Manuscripts must contain between 7,000 and 12,000 words and comply with the journal's formatting requirements, submission procedures, and publication ethics policies.

Component	Requirement
Manuscript Type	Original Research Article
Manuscript Length	7,000–12,000 words
Font	Californian FB, 12 pt
Line Spacing	1.15
Writing Format	Narrative paragraphs; excessive numbering and bullet-point formats are discouraged in the main text.
Title	10–16 words
Abstract	250–300 words
Keywords	3–5 keywords, alphabetically arranged and separated by semicolons
Introduction	6–8 coherent paragraphs
References	APA Citation Style, with at least 80% scholarly journal articles and emphasis on recent publications.
File Format	.doc, .docx, or .rtf
Submission System	Online Journal Systems (OJS)

Registration and login are required to submit manuscripts electronically and to monitor the progress of current submissions. Manuscripts must be submitted exclusively through the journal's online submission system.

Authors must upload editable source files in .doc, .docx, or .rtf format. PDF manuscripts are not accepted for initial submission. Paper-based and email submissions are not accepted.

Submissions may be made by a single author or multiple authors. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting the manuscript, providing accurate author information, coordinating communication with co-authors, and responding to editorial correspondence.

By submitting a manuscript, the submitting author confirms that they are authorised to act as the corresponding author and acknowledges that the journal may retain their contact details for manuscript-related communication in accordance with its privacy policy.

All original research articles submitted to JJR must contain the following components in the prescribed order:

No.	Manuscript Component
1	Title of the Article
2	Abstract
3	Keywords
4	Introduction
5	Research Method
6	Results and Discussion
7	Conclusion
8	References
9	Acknowledgments
10	Declaration of Generative AI Use
11	Competing Interest

The article title must consist of 10–16 words and should accurately reflect the central legal issue, research focus, and substantive contribution of the manuscript. A strong title should be concise, informative, specific, and academically meaningful, allowing readers to identify the subject and direction of the research without ambiguity.

Authors are encouraged to incorporate the principal legal concept, regulatory issue, institutional context, or comparative jurisdiction where relevant. The title should highlight the substantive focus of the research rather than merely identify a broad field of law. Unnecessary abbreviations, overly general expressions, unsupported claims, and excessively long formulations should be avoided.

Where appropriate, titles may indicate a comparative perspective, legal controversy, regulatory challenge, or analytical framework. The title must be consistent with the article's research questions, methodology, and findings.

Every research article must include an abstract of 250–300 words. The abstract should be written as a single coherent paragraph, clearly summarising the research without citations, unexplained abbreviations, tables, or figures.

The abstract should integrate five essential elements: (a) research problem, identifying the legal issue or regulatory gap examined; (b) research objective, explaining the specific purpose of the study; (c) research method, identifying the methodological approach and principal legal materials or data; (d) research findings, presenting the main analytical results rather than merely stating expected outcomes; and (e) research significance, explaining the contribution of the findings to legal scholarship, judicial practice, regulatory development, or law reform.

The abstract must be self-contained, precise, and consistent with the discussion and conclusions presented in the manuscript. General statements about the importance of the research should not replace a clear explanation of its actual findings.

Authors must provide 3–5 keywords that accurately represent the article's principal legal concepts, research subject, and relevant field of study. Keywords must be arranged alphabetically and separated by semicolons (;). Authors should prioritise specific, internationally recognisable terminology that supports the discoverability and indexing of the article.

The Introduction must be written in 6–8 coherent and logically connected paragraphs. It should establish the intellectual foundation of the research by presenting the legal context, identifying the research problem, reviewing relevant scholarship, and demonstrating the originality and significance of the study.

The introductory discussion should incorporate the following essential components in an integrated academic narrative:

Component	Expected Content
Research Phenomenon	Explain the legal, social, economic, regulatory, or judicial phenomenon underlying the research, supported by relevant data, authoritative legal sources, or previous studies.
Research Problem	Identify the principal legal problem through a critical examination of the gap between normative expectations and actual legal conditions, including the distinction between das Sollen and das Sein where appropriate.
Research Gap	Critically evaluate relevant previous scholarship, identify unresolved issues, analytical limitations, or conflicting findings, and establish the specific gap addressed by the present research.
Research Novelty	Explain the originality of the research in terms of its legal argument, analytical perspective, conceptual framework, comparative approach, empirical evidence, or proposed legal solution.
Research Significance	Demonstrate the anticipated scholarly, practical, judicial, or regulatory contribution and its relevance to contemporary legal discourse.
Research Objectives and Limitations	State the specific objectives or research questions and clarify the substantive, jurisdictional, conceptual, or methodological boundaries of the study.

The Introduction should demonstrate a clear progression from the broader research phenomenon to a specific legal problem, the limitations of existing scholarship, and the necessity of the proposed research. Authors should avoid presenting a purely descriptive background without identifying an explicit research gap and scholarly contribution.

The Research Method section must provide a clear, systematic, and sufficiently detailed explanation of how the research was conducted. Authors must identify the type of legal research employed, briefly explain its methodological characteristics, and justify its suitability for addressing the research questions.

The section should describe the research approaches adopted, such as statutory, conceptual, case-based, comparative, historical, empirical, socio-legal, or interdisciplinary approaches, as applicable. Authors must specify the primary and secondary legal materials or empirical data used, the methods employed to collect or identify those materials, and the techniques applied to analyse and interpret the evidence.

For doctrinal or normative legal research, authors should explain the selection of legal instruments, judicial decisions, legal doctrines, and scholarly sources, together with the legal reasoning or interpretative methods employed. For empirical or socio-legal research, authors should describe the research setting, participants or data sources, sampling strategy where applicable, data collection techniques, analytical procedures, and relevant ethical considerations.

The methodological explanation should be sufficiently transparent to allow readers to assess the research's reliability, analytical validity, and methodological appropriateness. Merely naming a research method without explaining its actual application is insufficient.

The Results and Discussion section constitutes the principal analytical component of the manuscript. It must present the research findings and develop a substantive, critical, and evidence-based discussion of their legal implications. The discussion should move beyond descriptive explanations of legal provisions, judicial decisions, or empirical observations by offering reasoned legal interpretation, analytical evaluation, and original scholarly arguments.

The organisation of this section should correspond directly to the research questions or objectives identified in the Introduction. Authors may divide the section into clearly defined analytical subsections according to the number and complexity of the research problems. Each subsection should address a specific legal issue and present a coherent relationship between the research findings, supporting legal sources, relevant theoretical perspectives, and the author's critical analysis.

The discussion should integrate relevant legal theories, principles, doctrines, statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and contemporary scholarly literature. Authors are expected to critically engage with existing research, identify consistencies or contradictions, and explain how their findings contribute to the development of legal knowledge.

For comparative legal research, the discussion should systematically examine similarities, differences, institutional contexts, and the implications of legal arrangements across the jurisdictions studied. For empirical or socio-legal research, findings should be interpreted in relation to applicable legal frameworks and relevant scholarly debates.

Where appropriate, authors should explain the practical consequences of their findings for legal practice, judicial reasoning, regulatory implementation, or law reform. Recommendations should be supported by the analysis rather than introduced without evidentiary justification.

The Conclusion must synthesise the principal findings of the research and provide clear, direct answers to the research questions formulated in the Introduction. The presentation of conclusions should follow the logical sequence of the legal issues examined in the Results and Discussion section.

Rather than merely repeating earlier discussions, the Conclusion should emphasise the study's central legal arguments, original contribution, and implications for legal scholarship, judicial practice, or regulatory development. Where appropriate, authors may present evidence-based recommendations for legal reform, policy improvement, or future research.

The Conclusion must not introduce new empirical findings, legal arguments, or references that have not been examined in the main discussion.

The References section must include all sources cited in the manuscript and must accurately reflect the legal materials and academic literature used in the research. References should demonstrate engagement with relevant, authoritative, and current scholarship.

Authors should prioritise literature published within the preceding five years, particularly when discussing contemporary legal developments and current scholarly debates. Earlier publications may be cited where necessary, especially for foundational legal theories, landmark judicial decisions, historical developments, and authoritative legal doctrines.

At least 80% of the scholarly bibliography should consist of articles published in reputable national or international academic journals. The remaining references may include scholarly books, research reports, institutional publications, and other academically relevant sources. Primary legal authorities, including legislation, regulations, and court decisions, should be cited as necessary to support the legal analysis.

References and in-text citations must follow the American Psychological Association (APA) Citation Style. Every source cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and every entry in the reference list must correspond to a source cited in the manuscript. References must be arranged alphabetically by the authors' surnames, following the applicable APA conventions.

Authors are strongly encouraged to use reference management software, such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote, to ensure citation consistency and bibliographic accuracy. Previously published articles in JJR may be consulted as examples of the journal's presentation style, but citations to JJR articles should be included only when genuinely relevant to the research.

Authors may acknowledge individuals, institutions, and organisations that provided assistance or support during the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship. This may include research supervisors, academic advisers, funding institutions, research assistants, proofreaders, administrative personnel, or individuals who contributed relevant materials or technical assistance.

Funding support should be identified transparently, including the name of the funding organisation and grant number where applicable. Acknowledgments should not imply endorsement or responsibility for the research findings by individuals or institutions that did not participate in the study.

Starting from Vol. 27, No. 2 (December 2025), all authors are required to include a Declaration of Generative AI Use as part of their manuscript submission. This declaration is mandatory regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence tools were used during the preparation of the manuscript.

Authors who have used generative AI tools must transparently disclose the name of the tool, the purpose of its use, and the specific stages of manuscript preparation in which it was employed. Such use may include language editing, drafting assistance, or other permitted activities, subject to the journal's ethical requirements.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scholarly content of their manuscripts. Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors and must not replace the authors' independent legal reasoning, critical analysis, or responsibility for the research.

Failure to provide the required declaration may result in the manuscript being returned for administrative revision or declined for further editorial consideration.

Further information is available in the journal's Declaration of Generative AI Use Policy.

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or the presentation of findings.

A competing interest declaration must be provided as part of the manuscript. Where no competing interests exist, authors should explicitly state that they have no competing interests to declare.

Authors may also be required to sign a formal competing interest statement once the manuscript has been accepted for publication. The disclosure of a competing interest does not automatically result in rejection; however, failure to disclose relevant interests may constitute a breach of publication ethics.

Authors must comply with internationally recognised standards of research integrity and responsible scholarly publishing. Manuscripts must be original, accurately documented, ethically conducted, and free from plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission, and manipulated citations.

All listed authors must have made a substantial scholarly contribution and must approve the final version submitted for editorial consideration. Authors must obtain necessary permissions for copyrighted materials and ensure appropriate ethical safeguards when research involves human participants, confidential information, or personal data.

JJR reserves the right to conduct editorial screening, similarity checking, and further ethical assessment of submitted manuscripts. Suspected misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable COPE guidance.

Manuscripts that satisfy the initial editorial requirements will undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers evaluate scholarly originality, methodological appropriateness, analytical depth, legal relevance, research contribution, and compliance with ethical standards.

Authors may be requested to undertake minor or major revisions and must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, while the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

For further information, authors should consult the journal's Review Process Policy.

The names and email addresses entered in the journal's website will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the Journal of Judicial Review, including manuscript submission, editorial correspondence, peer review, publication administration, and related scholarly communication. Such information will not be made available for unrelated purposes or disclosed to other parties except where necessary for the journal's legitimate publication activities or required by applicable law.

Authors are advised to download the official journal template and carefully review all relevant editorial policies before submitting their manuscripts.