Peer-Review Policy
1. Review Process
The Journal follows a double-blind peer review process, which means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the peer reviewer, and the author is not aware of the identity of the peer reviewer.
I. First Round of Peer Review
(a) The manuscripts are processed through multiple stages. First, the manuscript needs to clear the preliminary cum technical review, which involves technical checks including plagiarism, flag detection, paraphrasing check, and a preliminary overview of the manuscripts. This stage usually takes around 48-72 hours*, and any intimation regarding rejection or further process of the manuscript shall be done within these three days. After passing the stage, the manuscript is sent to two expert independent reviewers for their opinion.
(b) The reviewers are required to comment on the manuscript and may also be invited to advise the editor on its suitability for its publication in the Journal. The manuscript shall be reviewed on various parameters, such as structure and relevance, language and logical coherence, grammar, articulation, factual accuracy, citation style, and contribution to the existing literature. Factors like adherence to the proposed theme and the word limit, the originality of the idea, and the quality of the content shall be evaluated.
Once the editor has received and considered the reviewer reports, as well as made their own assessment of the manuscript, the decision is communicated to the author. This stage may take up to 7-10 days*, according to the availability of the reviewers. The reviewer reports along with any additional guidance from the editor are also shared with the author.
II. Second Round of Peer Review
(a) After receiving the reviewer reports, authors may be required to make amends in their manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it with any or all changes made. Once the author has resubmitted their manuscript, the editor will look through the revisions and send it for a second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess the response of the author to their comments. This stage may take up to 2-3 days*.
After this, the manuscript may be accepted or the author may be asked to make further revisions. However, the manuscript might be rejected if the changes made are not adequate. After the final set of revisions has been adequately made by the author, the manuscript is accepted and moves to the stage of publication.
2. Conflict of Interest
Authors are requested to disclose the names of those individuals with whom they have previously discussed the manuscript. These individuals will be barred from peer-reviewing the paper. Any failure or mischief on the part of authors in this regard will be dealt with strictly. While soliciting peer reviewers, DNLU-SLJ confirms that the peer reviewer has not previously engaged with the relevant manuscript. This is done keeping in mind the anonymity of the author.
3. Timeline
We endeavour to adhere to the timeline mentioned above, however, this timeline may get extended, in certain cases, due to delays by the peer reviewers. Additionally, this timeline may get further extended if there are subsequent rounds of review.
DNLU SLJ will provide the authors with regular updates regarding the status of their manuscripts via email. We shall also inform the authors regarding the peer reviewer’s comments as soon as we receive them. However, a final confirmation regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript can be provided only after the peer reviewer’s comments have been adequately incorporated.
For any queries, please contact the Editorial Board of the DNLU- Student Law Journal at: Email: dnluslj@mpdnlu.ac.in
* Refer to clause 3.
