Reviewer Guide

Juris Sinergi Journal (JSJ)

Standards of Conduct, Substantive Assessment, and Peer-Review Reporting

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1. Purpose of the Guidelines

These Reviewer Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) prescribe the professional obligations, ethical standards, assessment criteria, and reporting procedures applicable to all persons invited to serve as peer reviewers for Juris Sinergi Journal (the “Journal”).

1.2. Scope of Scholarly Assessment

The Journal publishes scholarly work addressing doctrinal, normative, empirical, socio-legal, comparative, and interdisciplinary questions of law. Reviewers shall assess manuscripts on their scholarly merits, with due regard to the applicable legal system, the research design, and the manuscript’s contribution to legal knowledge, professional practice, or the development of public policy.

1.3. Relationship with Journal Policies

The Guidelines shall be read in conjunction with the Journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy, and Publication Process. In the event of uncertainty, reviewers shall seek instructions from the Handling Editor before proceeding.

2. Peer-Review Model and Editorial Independence

2.1. Double-Blind Peer-Review Process

The Journal operates a double-blind peer-review process. As a general rule, a manuscript that has passed preliminary editorial screening shall be evaluated by at least two (2) independent expert reviewers. Authors' identities shall be withheld from reviewers, and reviewers' identities shall be withheld from authors, insofar as reasonably practicable under the Journal's review procedures.

2.2. Protection of Reviewer and Author Anonymity

Reviewers shall not attempt to identify an author, contact an author directly, or disclose their own identities in comments intended for authors. Where an author's identity becomes apparent and creates a possible conflict of interest, the reviewer shall promptly inform the Handling Editor.

2.3. Editorial Authority and Independence

A reviewer's recommendation constitutes independent scholarly advice. The authority to accept, request revision of, or reject a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or a duly authorized Handling Editor. Where reports materially diverge, the Editor may commission an additional independent review or undertake further editorial assessment.

3. Acceptance of a Review Invitation

3.1. Eligibility and Conditions for Acceptance

A prospective reviewer shall accept an invitation only where the reviewer:

possesses demonstrable expertise in the relevant legal subject matter and, where material, the proposed research methodology;
is able to provide an independent and reasoned assessment within the assigned period;
has disclosed any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest; and
can preserve the confidentiality and security of the materials supplied.

3.2. Response Period and Assignment Responsibilities

A reviewer should accept or decline an invitation within seven (7) calendar days. A person who lacks the requisite expertise or available time shall decline promptly and may suggest qualified alternatives without seeking to influence the outcome of the editorial process. No reviewer may delegate an accepted assignment without the Editor's prior express authorization.

4. Confidentiality and Proper Handling of Manuscripts

4.1. Duty of Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer invitations, supplementary materials, unpublished data, review reports, and editorial correspondence shall be treated as confidential and privileged scholarly communications for purposes of the Journal's review procedure.

4.2. Prohibited Disclosure and Use

Without the Editor's prior authorization, reviewers shall not:

disclose or circulate a manuscript, its contents, or its review status to any third party;
discuss an unpublished manuscript publicly, including on professional or social-media platforms;
use unpublished arguments, information, research data, or ideas for personal, institutional, competitive, or other advantage;
contact the author directly in relation to the review; or
involve assistants, students, colleagues, or other persons in the review.

4.3. Authorized Assistance and Secure Disposal

Where participation by an additional person is authorized, the reviewer shall identify that person to the Editor and ensure that equivalent duties of confidentiality are observed. Upon completion of the assignment, reviewers shall securely dispose of or delete personal copies of the manuscript, subject to any applicable legal retention obligation or express editorial instruction. The Journal's OJS record may be retained by the Journal in accordance with its own policies.

5. Conflicts of Interest and Impartiality

5.1. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers shall disclose without delay any circumstance that could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, their independence. Relevant circumstances may include, without limitation:

current employment or institutional affiliation shared with an identifiable author;
recent co-authorship, research collaboration, supervision, mentorship, or joint funding;
financial, professional, commercial, political, or personal interests affected by the research;
ongoing academic disputes, professional rivalries, or close personal relationships; and
any prior involvement in preparing, assessing, or materially contributing to the manuscript.

5.2. Duty to Decline or Suspend Review

A reviewer shall ordinarily decline the invitation where such circumstances create a material conflict. If a potential conflict arises after acceptance, the reviewer shall suspend further assessment and seek the Editor's determination.

5.3. Impartiality and Non-Discrimination

Assessment shall not be influenced by an author's nationality, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, institutional affiliation, political opinion, academic seniority, or other characteristic unrelated to scholarly merit. Disagreement with a manuscript's legal interpretation or normative position does not, without more, establish that the manuscript lacks academic merit.

6. General Criteria for Scholarly Assessment

Reviewers shall provide a reasoned assessment of the following matters, as applicable to the manuscript's stated research objectives:

6.1. Relevance and Scholarly Contribution

Does the manuscript fall within the Journal's remit and identify a material legal problem? Does it advance legal knowledge, theory, practice, institutional understanding, or policy analysis rather than merely restating established propositions?

6.2. Originality and Significance

Is the research question appropriately framed, and is the purported contribution supported by a demonstrable gap, unresolved controversy, new evidence, or a defensible reinterpretation of legal materials?

6.3. Research Question and Structure

Are the issues, objectives, thesis, scope, analytical framework, and principal propositions stated with sufficient precision? Is the reasoning internally coherent?

6.4. Legal Methodology

Is the research design suitable for the questions posed, adequately explained, and consistently applied? Are limitations and methodological choices acknowledged where material?

6.5. Accuracy of Legal Authorities

Are relevant constitutions, statutes, regulations, treaties, judicial decisions, administrative instruments, and other primary legal sources identified and interpreted accurately? Are jurisdiction, authority, legal hierarchy, amendment history, and temporal applicability properly addressed?

6.6. Strength of Legal Reasoning

Do conclusions follow from the applicable legal rules, authorities, evidence, and analysis? Does the manuscript distinguish positive law (lex lata) from proposals for legal reform (lex ferenda) and address material counterarguments?

6.7. Treatment of Prior Scholarship

Does the article engage critically and fairly with pertinent legal literature, including competing interpretations? Are sources authoritative, relevant, and sufficiently current for the topic?

6.8. Findings and Implications

Are the results adequately substantiated, and are recommendations legally defensible, proportionate to the evidence, and responsive to the stated research question?

6.9. Presentation and Transparency

Are the abstract, keywords, organization, tables, quotations, notes, and conclusions clear? Are limitations, data sources, funding, and relevant disclosures stated when applicable?

6.10. Citation and Attribution

Are citations complete, traceable, and consistent with the Journal's prescribed referencing style? Reviewers shall assess accuracy and scholarly integrity rather than require changes based solely on personal formatting preferences.

7. Method-Specific Standards for Legal Research

Reviewers shall evaluate a manuscript by standards appropriate to its declared methodology and shall not impose an empirical research design upon work whose contribution is properly doctrinal, theoretical, or normative.

7.1. Doctrinal or Normative Legal Research

Reviewers shall examine the selection, authenticity, authority, interpretation, and systematic treatment of primary and secondary legal materials; the applicable interpretive methods; doctrinal consistency; legal hierarchy; and the clarity of any normative propositions. Mere compilation or descriptive narration of legislation, without sustained analysis, will generally be insufficient.

7.2. Empirical and Socio-Legal Research

Reviewers shall consider the appropriateness of sampling, access to data, participant selection, instruments, interview or observation procedures, analytical methods, reflexivity, validity or trustworthiness, and limitations. Where applicable, reviewers shall consider informed consent, privacy safeguards, research permissions, and applicable institutional ethical approval requirements. Findings shall not exceed what the evidence can reasonably support.

7.3. Comparative Legal Research

Reviewers shall assess whether the jurisdictions or legal systems selected are justified; whether their constitutional, institutional, cultural, and historical contexts are adequately considered; and whether comparisons employ meaningful functional or doctrinal criteria. Unsupported transplantation of foreign legal rules or institutions shall be identified as a substantive weakness.

7.4. Judicial Decision and Case-Law Analysis

Reviewers shall verify, to a reasonable scholarly extent, the accuracy of case identification, court and jurisdiction, procedural posture, material facts, holdings, relevant reasoning, and precedential status. Distinctions between binding and persuasive authority, majority and dissenting opinions, and subsequent treatment of decisions should be addressed where relevant.

7.5. Interdisciplinary and Legal Policy Research

Reviewers shall assess the proper integration of legal doctrine with concepts, data, and methods from other disciplines. Policy recommendations shall identify their legal basis, institutional feasibility, foreseeable effects, and material limitations, rather than relying solely on general normative assertions.

8. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct

8.1. Identification of Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers shall remain attentive to indications of plagiarism, unattributed appropriation, redundant or duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, invented legal authorities or case citations, citation manipulation, undisclosed material conflicts, unethical collection or disclosure of personal information, and misleading presentation of results.

8.2. Confidential Reporting of Suspected Misconduct

A reviewer who identifies a credible concern shall report the matter confidentially to the Editor, identifying the relevant passages and supporting evidence where available. Reviewers shall not independently investigate authors, contact their institutions, publish allegations, or present suspected misconduct as an established finding. The Editor shall determine any necessary follow-up in accordance with the Journal's Publication Ethics and applicable procedures.

8.3. Prevention of Citation Manipulation

Reviewers shall not demand that authors cite the reviewer's work, the Journal's publications, or unrelated sources unless each requested citation is demonstrably necessary for a fair and accurate scholarly account. The use of citations to manipulate metrics or advance personal interests is prohibited.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

9.1. Compliance with the AI Use Policy

Reviewers shall comply with the Journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy. Unpublished manuscripts and review-related materials shall not be uploaded, disclosed, or transmitted to external generative-AI platforms where confidentiality, security, data retention, or downstream use cannot be adequately assured.

9.2. Authorization, Disclosure, and Accountability

A reviewer shall not employ AI tools to perform substantive peer-review functions without the Editor's prior express permission and confirmation that appropriate confidentiality and security safeguards are in place. Where such use is authorized, the reviewer shall disclose the tool and its intended purpose to the Editor, independently verify any AI-assisted output, and retain full personal responsibility for the resulting report. Automated text shall never replace the reviewer's independent legal judgment.

9.3. Verification of AI-Generated Legal References

Reviewers should remain vigilant to fabricated statutes, decisions, quotations, case numbers, Digital Object Identifiers, and other references, including those potentially produced by generative AI. Suspicions shall be communicated to the Editor in the manner prescribed in Section 8.

10. Preparation and Submission of the Review Report

10.1. Required Components of the Review Report

Each review report shall be sufficiently detailed to permit both the Editor and author to understand the basis of the recommendation. It should ordinarily contain:

Brief manuscript summary: an impartial statement of the research question, approach, central argument, and claimed contribution;
Overall evaluation: principal strengths, material weaknesses, and scholarly significance;
Major comments: numbered observations concerning legal accuracy, conceptual or methodological issues, evidence, argumentation, and substantial revisions required;
Minor comments: numbered observations on clarity, terminology, organization, citations, and presentation;
Recommendation: one of the categories specified in Section 11, supported by reasons; and
Confidential comments to the Editor: any conflict, integrity issue, or sensitive matter that should not be transmitted directly to the author.

10.2. Quality and Professional Standards of Comments

Comments addressed to authors shall be courteous, precise, actionable, and supported by reasons and references where necessary. Reviewers should identify sections, paragraphs, or page numbers to which objections relate. Personal attacks, defamatory statements, and merely conclusory criticism are impermissible.

10.3. Submission through OJS

Reviewers shall submit their reports through OJS and shall keep confidential comments clearly separate from those intended for transmission to authors. Reviewers shall not insert identifying details into author-visible comments or attachment metadata.

11. Recommendation Categories

11.1. Categories of Reviewer Recommendations

The following recommendations shall be used consistently:

Recommendation	Appropriate Circumstances
Accept	The manuscript meets the Journal's scholarly standards and requires no substantive changes.
Minor Revision	The central contribution is sound, but limited corrections or clarifications are necessary.
Major Revision	The research may be publishable, but substantial changes to the legal analysis, methodology, evidence, or structure are required.
Reject	Fundamental deficiencies, insufficient contribution, irresolvable methodological defects, or other serious shortcomings prevent publication in its present form.

11.2. Justification and Editorial Consideration

A recommendation of Major Revision shall not be represented as an assurance of eventual acceptance. Reviewers shall provide reasons for the category selected. An allegation of research misconduct shall be reported confidentially to the Editor, irrespective of the recommendation.

12. Review Deadlines and Publication Timetable

12.1. Standard Peer-Review Deadlines

The Journal's ordinary review schedule shall be administered as follows:

Review Activity	Maximum Period
Response to review invitation	7 calendar days from invitation
Initial peer-review report	42 calendar days from acceptance of the review assignment
Review of a revised manuscript, where requested	14 calendar days from acceptance of the reassessment assignment

12.2. Extension and Delay Notification

The foregoing periods are maximum operational targets; the Editor may request shorter deadlines by prior agreement. Reviewers shall immediately notify the Editor of circumstances likely to prevent timely completion, so that reassignment or other appropriate measures may be considered.

12.3. Overall Publication Timetable

The Journal's overall target publication period shall not exceed six (6) calendar months for an accepted manuscript under the ordinary publication pathway, subject to the Journal's Publication Process. This overall period is not the deadline for an individual reviewer and shall not be interpreted as a guarantee of acceptance. Calendar months, rather than an assumed fixed number of 180 days, govern the six-month policy.

13. Review of Revised Manuscripts

13.1. Assessment of Author Revisions

Where a revised manuscript is returned for further evaluation, the reviewer shall examine the revised text together with the author's point-by-point response, with particular attention to whether the material concerns previously identified have been adequately addressed.

13.2. Proportionality of Further Review Requests

Reviewers should not introduce unrelated new requirements in successive rounds unless they arise from the revised material or are essential to scholarly reliability, legal accuracy, or research integrity. Further revision requests shall be proportionate and reasoned. The Editor shall determine whether an additional round is necessary in light of the overall publication timetable.

14. Editorial Oversight, Professional Conduct, and Acknowledgment

14.1. Editorial Oversight and Professional Responsibilities

Reviewers shall act in good faith, exercise reasonable scholarly care, and observe all applicable Journal policies. The Editor may discontinue a review assignment where independence, competence, timeliness, confidentiality, or professional conduct is materially compromised.

14.2. Reviewer Acknowledgment and Confidentiality

The Journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions in aggregate or annual lists, without identifying the manuscripts reviewed or disclosing confidential review material. No such acknowledgment shall override the double-blind character of an individual review. Reviewers shall not represent their recommendation as the Journal's final editorial decision.

Appendix A — Recommended Reviewer Report Template

A.1. Manuscript Identification and Reviewer Declaration

Manuscript ID: [OJS manuscript number]
Manuscript title: [Title as submitted]
Review round: [Initial / Revision]
Reviewer declaration: [I confirm that I have reviewed the Journal's conflict-of-interest, confidentiality, and AI-use requirements, and have disclosed any relevant concerns to the Editor.]

A.2. Brief Manuscript Summary

Brief summary (approximately 100–200 words):
[State the research question, legal methodology, main thesis, and claimed contribution without disclosing personal information.]

A.3. Assessment Checklist

Mark each item Excellent / Satisfactory / Needs Improvement / Not Applicable, and substantiate any material concern:

Relevance to the Journal's legal and interdisciplinary scope: [ ]
Originality, novelty, and significance: [ ]
Clarity of the legal question and thesis: [ ]
Appropriateness and transparency of methodology: [ ]
Accuracy and currency of legal authorities: [ ]
Strength of legal reasoning and treatment of counterarguments: [ ]
Quality of supporting literature, citations, and attribution: [ ]
Adequacy of results, conclusions, and policy implications: [ ]
Research integrity and necessary ethical safeguards: [ ]
Structure, clarity, and academic presentation: [ ]

A.4. Major Comments

[Identify significant concerns, explain their scholarly implications, and specify revisions necessary to address them. Provide numbered comments.]

A.5. Minor Comments

[Identify corrections of wording, organization, references, citations, and presentation. Provide numbered comments.]

A.6. Reviewer Recommendation

Select one recommendation:

[ ] Accept
[ ] Minor Revision
[ ] Major Revision
[ ] Reject

A.7. Confidential Comments to the Editor

[Conflicts of interest, suspected misconduct, sensitive concerns, or comments relevant to editorial handling. Do not include these in the author-visible review.]