This policy sets out how manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Judicial Review (JJR) are assessed, from submission to publication, and the responsibilities of authors, editors and reviewers at each stage. It follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices.

JJR uses double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. Every manuscript that passes initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of law. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on each manuscript.

The review process is guided by five principles:

• Merit. Decisions rest only on the manuscript's originality, legal relevance, analytical rigour and clarity.
• Fairness. Every submission, including those from UIB staff and editorial board members, follows the same process.
• Confidentiality. Manuscripts and review reports are confidential documents.
• Independence. Reviewers and editors with a conflict of interest withdraw from the manuscript.
• Timeliness. The journal aims to reach a first decision within approximately 90 days of submission.

A manuscript can be rejected at screening or after review; manuscripts needing revision return to the reviewers until the editor reaches a final decision.

Reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

Criterion	Questions Reviewers Consider
Relevance and scope	Does the manuscript address a legal issue within the journal's scope? Is it of interest to an international readership?
Originality and contribution	Does it offer new findings, arguments or frameworks? Does it add to existing scholarship?
Legal problem and research question	Is the legal problem clearly stated and the research question well defined?
Research method	Is the method (doctrinal, socio-legal, comparative or interdisciplinary) stated and appropriate?
Theoretical framework	Is the analysis grounded in relevant legal theory and doctrine?
Analysis and argument	Is the analysis thorough, logical and well supported by legal sources or data?
Sources and references	Are primary legal sources and recent scholarly literature used accurately and cited correctly?
Conclusion	Do the conclusions follow from the analysis and answer the research question?
Clarity and presentation	Is the manuscript clearly written, well organised and in line with the template?
Ethics	Are there concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, research ethics or undisclosed AI use?

Based on their evaluation, reviewers make one of four recommendations:

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept as it is	The manuscript can be published without changes.
Accept with minor revisions	Publication is desirable, and a limited number of changes will bring the manuscript to the required standard.
Accept with major revisions	The manuscript needs considerable reworking before it can be reconsidered; the revised version is normally sent back to the reviewers.
Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for publication, generally because it is outside the scope and aims, has serious methodological or analytical problems, or lacks clarity of presentation.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, weighing all review reports, the author's response and the journal's scope and standards. The editor may reach a decision that differs from a reviewer's recommendation, and will give reasons in the decision letter. Every decision letter includes the reviewers' comments to the author.

At submission, authors must:

• Submit only original research that has not been published and is not under review elsewhere;
• Prepare the manuscript with the Journal Template and follow the Author Guidelines;
• Remove all identifying information from the manuscript file, including names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying citations and document metadata;
• List all authors who made a substantial contribution, with their agreement, and name a corresponding author;
• Declare any funding, conflicts of interest and use of generative AI;
• Cite all sources accurately and obtain permission for any copyrighted material;
• Confirm that empirical research involving people followed ethical standards, including informed consent where required.

During review and revision, authors must:

• Respond to all reviewer comments in a point-by-point response letter, explaining each change or giving reasoned grounds for any suggestion not adopted;
• Highlight changes in the revised manuscript;
• Return revisions within the deadline set by the editor, or request an extension in advance;
• Not contact reviewers or try to identify them;
• Not submit the manuscript to another journal while it is under review at JJR.

After acceptance, authors must:

• Check proofs carefully and return them promptly; only corrections of errors, not new content, are allowed at proof stage;
• Inform the editor promptly of any significant error discovered in their work, before or after publication.

Fair and Independent Decisions. Editors evaluate manuscripts only on their scholarly merit and fit with the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, seniority or political views. Decisions are not influenced by the publisher, university leadership or any payment.

Initial Assessment. Editors screen each submission promptly and decline, with reasons, manuscripts that are outside the scope, lack a research method, fail the similarity check or do not meet basic quality standards. They do not send unsuitable manuscripts to reviewers.

Selecting Reviewers. Editors invite at least two qualified reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work, and they maintain a diverse international pool of reviewers. Author suggestions or requests to exclude certain reviewers may be considered but are not binding.

Managing the Process. Editors keep the review moving within the target times, remind reviewers when reports are overdue, and replace reviewers who cannot complete their work. They check review reports for quality and remove any offensive or identifying remarks before sending them to authors.

Communicating Decisions. Editors send clear decision letters that explain the decision and include the reviewers' comments, and they set reasonable deadlines for revision.

Confidentiality. Editors do not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers and editorial staff involved, and they do not use unpublished material for their own research.

Conflicts of Interest. Editors withdraw from handling any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest, including their own work, work by colleagues or students, and work by recent co-authors. Another editor then manages the manuscript and its decision.

Ethics. Editors respond to suspected misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission and citation manipulation, in line with COPE guidance, and they publish corrections or retractions when needed.

Accepting an Invitation. Reviewers accept an invitation only if they have the expertise to assess the manuscript and can complete the review on time. They respond to invitations promptly and suggest alternative reviewers when they decline.

Conflicts of Interest. Reviewers decline, or inform the editor, if they have a personal, professional, institutional or financial conflict of interest, or if they believe they know the author's identity.

Objective and Constructive Review. Reviewers judge the manuscript on its scholarly merit, using the journal's evaluation criteria. Comments should be specific, supported by reasons and courteous, helping the authors improve their work. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.

The Review Report. Each report includes a short summary of the manuscript, an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, specific suggestions for improvement, confidential comments for the editor where needed, and one of the four recommendations.

Confidentiality. Reviewers treat the manuscript as confidential. They do not share it, discuss it with others, contact the authors or use its content for their own work before publication. Reviewers do not upload any part of the manuscript to generative AI tools, which could breach confidentiality.

Ethical Concerns. Reviewers alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data or other misconduct, and to substantial similarity with other published work.

Citations. Reviewers may recommend relevant literature but must not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work, or the journal's articles, without genuine scholarly justification.

Timeliness. Reviewers submit reports within the agreed time and inform the editor promptly if they need an extension.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors or editorial board members go through the same double-blind review. The submitting editor has no access to the manuscript's review records, and another editor makes the decision. JJR limits the number of such articles in any one issue.

Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding of their work may appeal once, within 30 days of the decision. The appeal is sent to the editorial office with a detailed explanation of the grounds. The Editor-in-Chief, or another senior editor where the Editor-in-Chief was involved in the decision, considers the appeal and may consult additional reviewers. The outcome of the appeal is final. Disagreement with a reviewer's opinion alone is not grounds for appeal.

Suspected misconduct by authors, reviewers or editors at any stage, including plagiarism, manipulation of peer review, breaches of confidentiality or undisclosed conflicts of interest, is investigated in line with COPE flowcharts and the journal's Publication Ethics policy. Depending on the outcome, the journal may reject the manuscript, remove a reviewer from its pool, inform the authors' institutions or retract a published article.