ISSN Under Process·Indexed in Under Process
LinkedIn·Instagram
Jus Scriptum LogoJus ScriptumEstd. 2023
Home
About
Volumes
Blogs
For Authors
Submit
Track
Contact
Submit PaperTrack PaperCall for PapersContact
Vol. I · Issue 01
Jus Scriptum LogoJus ScriptumISSN Under Process · Quarterly
Open AccessCC BY 4.0Peer Reviewed

Journal Information

  • About Jus Scriptum
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Abstracting & Indexing
  • Current Issue
  • Archives

For Authors

  • Submission Guidelines
  • Peer Review Policy
  • Publication Ethics
  • Article Processing Charges
  • Copyright Policy
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Track Your Paper

Blogs

  • Articles & Commentary
  • Categories

Contact

  • Editorial Office
  • Submissions
  • Billing & APC
  • General Inquiries
  • Write a Review
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram

Indexed in:

Under Process

Publisher Address

Ritik Agrawal · 302, Trident Apartment, Nehru Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh – 474011, India

© 2023–2026 Jus Scriptum. All rights reserved.

·Website by Glyphash
Terms·Privacy·Disclaimer
  1. Home
  2. /For Authors
  3. /Peer Review Policy

For Authors

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

How we evaluate manuscripts to maintain academic rigor

Jus Scriptum Law Journal follows a double-blind peer-review system for all manuscripts to safeguard academic integrity, impartiality, and quality. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Review Process Overview

1

Anonymised Submission

Authors must remove all identifying information before submission. Reviewers receive anonymised manuscripts and assess only the quality, originality, methodology, legal analysis, and scholarly contribution of the work.

2

Preliminary Editorial Screening

Every manuscript is screened for relevance to the Journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, originality, and adherence to ethical standards.

3

Independent Expert Review

Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers assess research significance, legal reasoning, clarity, citation accuracy, methodological soundness, coherence, and contribution to legal scholarship.

4

Editorial Decision

The Editorial Board considers the reviewers’ recommendations and communicates its decision to the author.

Possible Editorial Decisions

  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept subject to minor revisions
  • Invite major revisions and resubmission for further review
  • Reject where the manuscript does not meet academic or ethical standards

Revisions

Authors must address each reviewer comment comprehensively and submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers when further evaluation is necessary.

Reviewer Conduct and Confidentiality

Reviewers must act professionally, confidentially, objectively, and ethically. They must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised, and must not share, discuss, or use review materials for personal or professional advantage.

Final Publication Authority

The Editorial Board retains final authority over publication decisions. Reviewer recommendations are given significant weight, but the final decision rests on scholarly merit, originality, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication in Jus Scriptum Law Journal.

Through its rigorous double-blind peer-review process, Jus Scriptum Law Journal promotes fairness, academic excellence, transparency, and reliable legal research that contributes meaningfully to legal education, policy, and practice.