Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The NIU Journal of Legal Studies, Cyber Policy and Digital Governance follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and ethically sound research. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain objectivity, eliminate bias, and uphold academic integrity. Each manuscript undergoes a multi-stage evaluation process designed to assess its scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, relevance, and clarity before publication.
Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary screening to verify that the manuscript complies with the journal’s submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards.
This stage includes scope and relevance checks, plagiarism screening using detection software, verification of completeness (including abstract, keywords, and references), and compliance with ethical policies. Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without further review.
After successful screening, the manuscript is assigned to an appropriate Handling Editor or Associate Editor based on subject expertise.
The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality, novelty, relevance to the journal’s scope, and academic quality before deciding whether to proceed with peer review or issue a desk rejection.
The Handling Editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant research domain. Typically, two or more independent reviewers are selected.
Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, research background, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest, ensuring diversity, independence, and fairness in evaluation.
The journal follows a double-blind review system, where reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
This process minimizes bias related to institutional affiliation or reputation and ensures objective evaluation. Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, methodological soundness, legal and policy relevance, clarity, and contribution to existing knowledge.
After evaluation, reviewers submit detailed reports along with one of the following recommendations:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Reject
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
The editor reviews all reviewer comments and recommendations before making a final decision on the manuscript.
Possible decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Decisions are made based on academic merit, reviewer feedback, and overall contribution to the field.
If revisions are required, authors are provided with reviewer comments and are expected to address all feedback systematically and submit a revised manuscript.
Authors must also provide a detailed response to reviewers. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review until all concerns are satisfactorily addressed.
Once the manuscript meets all academic, ethical, and quality standards, it is formally accepted for publication.
The final decision is based on reviewer recommendations, quality of revisions, and editorial assessment. Authors are notified, and the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.
After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting and proofreading to ensure clarity, readability, language accuracy, formatting consistency, and reference accuracy.
Authors are provided with final proofs for approval before publication, ensuring the article meets the journal’s standards and is ready for dissemination.
