Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law (IJCAL) are subject to a rigorous editorial screening and peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity. IJCAL applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editorial Team to determine whether it conforms to the journal’s basic submission requirements. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

  • conformity with the journal’s focus and scope;
  • compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template;
  • completeness of metadata, references, and author information;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • academic writing quality and clarity of argument;
  • possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism and redundant publication.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum editorial standards, fall outside the journal’s scope, or contain substantial methodological, structural, or ethical deficiencies may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.

2. Similarity Check

Before entering the peer review stage, all manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. IJCAL only considers manuscripts that demonstrate acceptable originality. Where excessive similarity, improper citation, or suspected plagiarism is identified, the Editorial Team may reject the manuscript outright or return it to the author for clarification.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the field of constitutional law, administrative law, or other related public law areas. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and subject-matter competence.

Under the double-blind review system:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s);
  • author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Each reviewer is invited to evaluate the manuscript objectively, fairly, and confidentially, based on academic merit rather than personal, institutional, or ideological considerations.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript based on several substantive and technical criteria, including:

  • originality and significance of the topic;
  • relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
  • clarity of research problem, argument, and objectives;
  • adequacy of legal, doctrinal, conceptual, or empirical analysis;
  • engagement with relevant and current literature;
  • coherence of structure and logical flow of discussion;
  • validity of conclusions and contribution to scholarship;
  • quality of language, citation, and scholarly presentation;
  • compliance with ethical and academic standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and, where appropriate, practical recommendations for improvement.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Resubmit with major revisions
  • Reject

The final decision on publication rests with the Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief, who consider the reviewers’ recommendations together with the journal’s editorial standards and publication priorities.

Where reviewer opinions substantially diverge, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer or make an editorial determination based on the overall academic merits of the manuscript.

6. Revision Stage

If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) together with the reviewers’ comments. Authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript; and
  • a response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Failure to revise adequately or within the specified period may result in rejection.

7. Final Acceptance and Pre-Publication Editing

After a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the editorial production stage, which may include copyediting, reference checking, formatting, language polishing, layout editing, and final proof approval by the author(s). Acceptance for publication is granted only after the manuscript has satisfactorily passed all editorial and review requirements.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use any part of the submitted manuscript for personal advantage or for any purpose other than editorial evaluation.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. This includes personal, professional, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the author(s), as well as any competitive or financial interest related to the manuscript.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer concerned will be excluded from handling or reviewing the manuscript.

10. Submissions by Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Reviewers

To maintain editorial independence and integrity, manuscripts submitted by Editors, Editorial Board members, or Reviewers of IJCAL are handled with strict procedural safeguards. Such manuscripts will be managed by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the submitting author, and they will undergo the same double-blind peer review process as all other submissions. Individuals with direct involvement in the manuscript will not participate in the editorial decision.

11. Ethical Oversight

The peer review process of IJCAL is conducted in accordance with principles of academic integrity, fairness, objectivity, and transparency. The journal is committed to preventing plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, improper authorship, citation manipulation, and other forms of publication malpractice.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable bias. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office and will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editor not previously involved in the original decision. The journal reserves the right to reject appeals that are unsupported or merely argumentative.

13. Review Timeline

IJCAL aims to complete the initial editorial screening within 1–2 weeks after submission. The peer review process generally takes 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Revised manuscripts are evaluated as promptly as possible. Although the journal strives to ensure timely processing, the duration of review may vary in particular cases.