Scientific Peer Review

• All research papers, studies, and commentaries on judicial rulings are subject to peer review by at least two qualified and experienced reviewers, with the authors’ names kept anonymous.
• Review is conducted according to objective criteria (originality, methodology, significance, clarity), and the reviewers’ opinions and recommendations are respected; the Editor-in-Chief oversees this process.
• The editorial board selects lists of academic reviewers specializing in various branches of law, based on competence, experience, and objectivity, and these lists are updated periodically.
• The journal’s administration verifies that submitted research complies with publication rules and ethics, using plagiarism detection software, and presents the results to the editor-in-chief.
• The Editor-in-Chief submits the research to a specialized member of the editorial board to assess its suitability for review.
• The research is referred to at least two reviewers, and a third reviewer may be appointed in the event of a disagreement.
• The review period is two to three weeks at most. If a reviewer is delayed, the research is referred to a replacement.
• The researcher is required to implement the requested revisions and highlight them in a different color; if there is an objection to any of them, the matter is referred to the Editor-in-Chief for a decision.
• If the research is rejected, the researcher shall be notified, and he or she may request a copy of the reviewers’ reports for review.
• The reviewer’s academic rank must be higher than that of the researcher whenever possible.
• The researchers’ comments on the reviewers’ reports are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for consideration, provided they are based on scientific and objective grounds.
• The editorial board reserves the right to bypass the previously stipulated peer-review process in certain cases, particularly for research submitted by holders of advanced academic degrees and distinguished researchers known for their prolific scholarly output. This exception is made in recognition of the academic reputation and scientific expertise of this group, while emphasizing that all published research, whether peer-reviewed or exempted, is subject to strict academic quality standards, including scientific originality, methodological soundness, and clarity of results, to ensure the preservation of the journal’s scientific credibility.