Instruction for Reviewers

a Duties of reviewers

Review only within your competence, declare material conflicts, accept realistic deadlines, preserve confidentiality and provide an independent, evidence-based assessment. Disclose conflicts before receiving a full assignment. Do not contact authors directly, exploit unpublished ideas, share files, demand irrelevant citations, make discriminatory remarks or outsource assessment. A co-reviewer requires prior editor approval, conflict screening and equivalent confidentiality obligations; the contribution is recorded with consent. Restrictions on artificial intelligence are in Generative AI Policy section 5.

Authors may suggest experts or justified exclusions in the cover letter. Editors verify identity and expertise independently, are not bound by suggestions, and do not rely exclusively on an author-supplied email address. Reviewer recommendations are never sold, and reviewer invitations and selection are human-approved.

Review timelines will be published once adopted. Authors are notified of material delays, told the next step and allowed to withdraw.

How reports are handled

Editors retain original reports. A report may be redacted to remove personal identifiers, abusive or discriminatory language, confidential third-party information or coercive requests, without changing the substance of the scholarly assessment. Editors request reviewer clarification where practical, record edits and explain material redaction to the author; they do not fabricate a replacement report or suppress reasoned criticism.

Reports, editorial letters and author responses are not routinely published. Article pages identify whether the item received external review, editorial review or an exceptional assessment. Any exceptional departure from the normal process is justified and disclosed on the item and is not represented as the normal two-reviewer process.

b Reviewers guidelines

Before accepting, confirm subject expertise, availability, conflicts and confidentiality. In the report, address the question and legal contribution; scope and engagement with scholarship; validity and currency of legal authorities; method and source selection; evidence and interpretation; ethics and disclosures; structure and accessibility. Support serious concerns with specific examples. Separate essential changes from optional suggestions and give a reasoned recommendation.

Suggested report structure: brief neutral summary; principal contribution; major points; minor points; legal-source or method concerns; ethical or disclosure concerns; and reasoned recommendation. Assess current and accurately cited legal authorities, interpretive reasoning, source selection, comparative context, empirical validity where relevant, and limitations. Distinguish missing evidence from disagreement with a defensible interpretation. Recommendations are reject, major revision, minor revision or accept; the editor decides.

Use the confidential editor field for identity concerns, conflicts or suspected misconduct, while ensuring that authors receive the substantive criticisms needed for a fair response. Do not investigate covertly, contact parties to a dispute, demand confidential client files or accuse an author publicly.

Send reports through the journal’s review system by the agreed date and request extensions promptly. The editor may seek clarification or redact abusive or identifying content without misrepresenting the reviewer’s assessment. Supplementary evidence is reviewed with the article.

c Generative AI and peer review

Under Generative AI Policy section 5, confidential review materials must not be transferred to external generative AI systems, and substantive assessment or decision recommendations must not be delegated to them. Any later approved exception requires the documented safeguards, disclosure and human accountability stated there.

Policy version: founding draft 2.2 (2 November 2026), pending formal adoption.