Guidelines for Reviewers

UIN Law Review implements a double-blind review (author and reviewer information are kept confidential from each other) for submitted articles except for editorials. We understand that review serves as an important step in the overall publication process; therefore, we greatly appreciate the role that reviewers perform voluntarily.

Reviews can be submitted through our online form or using the form we provide here.

Overview

All articles submitted to UIN Law Review, except editorials, are reviewed by two experts. Reviewers are required to provide a recommendation on whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. We perform plagiarism screening for each article; however, reviewers are expected to notify the editors if they suspect any issues of misconduct by the authors.

Reviewers invited by the editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have with respect to the manuscript or authors. All possible personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest should be considered.

Detailed Review

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed and constructive comments that will help the editors make decisions about publication and assist authors in improving their manuscript. They should indicate whether the work has serious flaws that preclude its publication, or whether additional data or analysis is required to support the conclusions drawn.

When preparing the report, reviewers are asked to consider the following:

1. Originality and significance of the work presented
   Reviewers are asked to comment on the originality of the manuscript and its significance to the academic community. If similar work has been published previously, relevant references should be provided.
2. Experimental or theoretical approach to the problem addressed
   Reviewers should discuss the novelty of the theoretical framework or methodological approach presented in the manuscript.
3. Strengths and weaknesses of the methods used
   Reviewers should assess the suitability of the methods used. Technical aspects, including data analysis where relevant, should be commented on, and suggestions for improvement are encouraged.
4. Reliability of results and validity of conclusions
   Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the data and analysis presented.
5. Organization of the manuscript
   Reviewers should comment on the clarity, coherence, and logical structure of the manuscript and suggest improvements where necessary.
6. Discussion of the literature most relevant to the topic
   Reviewers should assess the relevance and adequacy of the cited literature and suggest additional references if important studies are omitted.
7. Revision
   When revisions are recommended, reviewers should clearly indicate which aspects require improvement, such as strengthening the argument, improving organization, or adding supporting data.

Please note that, if necessary, accepted manuscripts will undergo language editing by a native speaker. Incorrect grammar, style or punctuation should not be a sufficient reason to reject a manuscript if it is still understandable to the reviewers and the content is worthy of publication from a scientific point of view. Confidentiality Please do not distribute copies of the manuscript or use the results contained therein. However, please feel free to show it to discuss it with knowledgeable colleagues and consult with them about the review. We would appreciate it if you could suggest alternative reviewers that are suitable for the topic covered. Technical Please return your report within the specified deadline or notify the Editor as soon as possible if you are unable to do so. You can submit your review through the existing online submission system in OJS.