Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Double-blind peer review is a rigorous and essential process in the publication of academic research, including in law journals. This process helps ensure the quality, integrity, and validity of the research that gets published.

 

The following is a detailed explanation of how our double-blind peer review process typically works:

1. Submission: The process begins when the author submits their research paper to CTAG. The research paper must contain their original research, which may include legal analysis, case studies, or empirical studies on related legal issues following the themes of our journal.

2. Editorial Screening: Before manuscripts proceed to the double-blind peer review, they undergo a meticulous assessment by our editorial board. This initial step serves as a vital filter to ensure that submissions resonate with our core objectives. Manuscripts are evaluated based on their alignment with our mission to contribute effectively to governance transparency and accountability. During the screening process, we meticulously assess the alignment of the submitted manuscripts with our core objectives. Manuscripts must convincingly demonstrate their capacity to contribute meaningfully to the discourse on transparency and accountability in governance. We assess the scope and relevance of each submission, ensuring it falls within the domain of governance transparency. Only manuscripts that meet our stringent quality standards with respect to research depth, clarity, and scholarly rigor proceed to the peer review stage.

3. Selecting Reviewers: Contingent upon meeting the above criteria, a decision is taken by the editorial board. If accepted, the editorial board then selects qualified and unbiased reviewers who are experts in the field relevant to the manuscript. These reviewers are typically scholars, researchers, or practitioners with expertise in the specific legal topic.

4. Anonymized Manuscript: Before sending the manuscript to the reviewers, the appropriate details are removed. A copy of the manuscript is created, and a code number is assigned. The copy is then sent to experts for review.

5. Reviewer Assessment: Reviewers are given access to the anonymized manuscript and asked to assess it based on various criteria, which may include:

   1. Originality of research

   2. Clarity and coherence of the argument

   3. Methodological rigor (if applicable)

   4. Contemporary relevance to the field of law

   5. Proper use of citations and references

   6. Ethical considerations

6. Peer Review Reports: Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations in a formal peer review report. This report typically includes an overall recommendation regarding publication, such as “accept as is,” “accept with minor revisions,” “accept with major revisions,” or “reject.” Reviewers may also provide comments and suggestions for improvement.

7. Editorial board’s decision: the editorial board reviews the feedback from all reviewers and decides on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. This decision is communicated to the author(s) along with the peer review reports.

8. Revision (if necessary): If revisions are required, the author(s) are given the opportunity to address the reviewer’s comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. This process may go through several rounds until the manuscript meets the journal’s standards.

9. Final Decision: Once the editorial board is satisfied with the revisions and believes the manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards, a final decision is made regarding publication.

10. Publication: If the manuscript is accepted, it is prepared for publication, and the author(s) are notified. The paper is then published in the law journal, either in print or online, depending on the journal’s format.

 

The double-blind peer review process is designed to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the peer review system. By removing author identities from the review process, it helps ensure that submissions are evaluated based solely on their academic merit and contribution to the field of law. This rigorous process is critical for maintaining the quality and credibility of law journals and academic research.