Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology (TAJPSLC)
ISSN: 2693-0803

The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology uses peer review to assess the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process supports informed editorial decisions and helps authors strengthen their research and analysis.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office checks each submission for completeness, compliance with author guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The initial assessment considers:

• Originality and contribution to political science, law, or criminology.

• Clarity of the research questions and analytical framework.

• Suitability of the methods, legal reasoning, and supporting evidence.

• Quality of presentation and engagement with relevant scholarship.

• Ethics approval, informed consent, and permissions, where applicable.

• Authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest declarations.

• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts may be returned for clarification or rejected before external review if they fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet its basic requirements. Passing this stage does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript, removing identifying information from the text and file properties. Although the journal takes steps to preserve anonymity, identities may sometimes be inferred from preprints, working papers, references, or the research context.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers according to their expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewer selection considers the manuscript’s discipline, jurisdiction, theoretical approach, and empirical, doctrinal, comparative, or historical methods.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments where these could compromise their judgment. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but final selection remains the editor’s responsibility.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

• Scholarly significance, originality, and relevance.

• Clarity of the research questions or central argument.

• Engagement with appropriate literature and theory.

• Suitability and transparency of the research approach.

• Accuracy and relevance of legal authorities and documentary sources.

• Quality of data collection and analysis, where applicable.

• Whether conclusions are supported by evidence or rigorous reasoning.

• Recognition of limitations and jurisdictional or contextual boundaries.

• Ethical treatment of participants and confidential information.

• Implications for scholarship, governance, legal reform, or criminal justice practice.

Empirical studies are assessed for methodological rigor and appropriate interpretation. Doctrinal studies are assessed for accurate use of legal sources and coherent reasoning. Theoretical and comparative studies are assessed for the strength of their arguments and the justification of their comparisons.

5. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers reviewer reports alongside the manuscript’s scholarly and ethical merits. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before further assessment.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or contains significant unresolved concerns.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; the final decision rests with the editor. Where reports differ substantially, an additional independent review may be requested.

6. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit:

• An updated manuscript.

• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

• An explanation of changes and evidence-based reasons for any disagreement.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers. Further revision rounds may be necessary.

Authors should meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Acceptance and Publication

Acceptance is issued when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly, reporting, and ethical requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors must check proofs carefully, including quotations, legal authorities, numerical results, tables, and references.

Substantial changes to findings, arguments, conclusions, or authorship after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further assessment.

8. Review Timelines

Review duration depends on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author response times.

The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors may contact the journal for a submission status update.

Acceptance or publication by a particular date cannot be guaranteed before the assessment process is complete.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts, supporting files, and review correspondence are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished content without authorization or use it for personal advantage.

Reviewers must provide respectful, objective, and constructive feedback. Suspected plagiarism, inaccurate sources, data irregularities, undisclosed overlap, or ethical concerns must be reported to the editor.

Citation recommendations must have a scholarly justification and must not primarily serve to increase personal or journal citation counts.

Confidential manuscripts, restricted records, and sensitive participant information must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect impartial assessment and recuse themselves where necessary. Relevant interests may include collaboration, professional representation, consultancy, advocacy roles, or involvement in matters examined by the manuscript.

Assessment focuses on scholarly merit. Agreement or disagreement with an author’s political position or legal argument must not replace evaluation of the evidence, methods, and reasoning.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members receive independent handling. The submitting individual takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision on their own manuscript.

Publication charges and commercial interests do not influence review outcomes. Payment does not guarantee acceptance, favorable reviews, or preferential treatment.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals should identify specific concerns about the assessment or decision.

The journal may seek independent editorial advice when reviewing an appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, or the integrity of the process are assessed under the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

Contact

For questions about peer review, submission status, revisions, or appeals, please contact the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.