Peer Reviewer Guidelines
1. Introduction
Peer review is a critical component of the scholarly publishing process. It ensures the quality and validity of research by subjecting it to rigorous evaluation by independent and experienced experts in the field. Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the validity and credibility of academic publications. This guideline policy intends to define what peer reviewing is and provide rational provisions for its procedure.
2. Definition of Peer Reviewing
Peer reviewing is a process in which experts who have specialised in a specific field evaluate and provide feedback on scholarly research papers or other works before they are published. The primary objectives of peer reviewing are to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and significance of the research, as well as to offer constructive criticism to improve the work's overall quality
3. Expected outcomes
Expected outcomes of the peer review process include the following:
- Ensuring quality and validity of published works.
- Enhancing critical evaluation by buttressing suitability for publication.
- Supporting the maintenance of integrity and authenticity.
- Identifying glaring thematic, grammatical, and logical errors.
- Providing constructive feedback to support authors in text development.
4. Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers should adhere to the following code of conduct:
4.1. Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat the reviewed manuscript as confidential and not disclose any information or findings to unauthorised individuals. Reviewers should respect the intellectual property rights of the authors and refrain from using or disclosing unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal gain.
4.2. Objectivity and impartiality
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and without bias, considering only the scientific or scholarly merits of the work.
4.3. Timeliness and responsiveness
Reviewers should promptly respond to requests to review manuscripts and inform the journal editor if they cannot fulfill their commitment within the agreed-upon timeframe. Constructive feedback should be provided promptly, helping authors to improve their work.
4.4. Expertise and qualifications
Reviewers should possess the necessary expertise, knowledge, and qualifications in the subject area relevant to the manuscript under review. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a particular aspect of the work, they should inform the editor.
4.5 Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should promptly declare personal or professional conflicts of interest. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should recuse themselves from the stated task.
4.6. Constructive criticism
Reviewers should provide feedback respectfully and constructively, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the research. Criticisms should be justified and supported by appropriate evidence or references. Reviewers should avoid personal attacks or derogatory remarks about the authors.
4.7. Ethical considerations
Reviewers should alert the journal editor if they suspect any ethical misconduct in the research, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest. They should maintain the highest ethical standards and avoid engaging in any activities that may compromise the integrity of the peer review process.
4.8. Anonymity
The journal operates a double blind peer review procedure. Therefore, reviewers are advised to exercise caution so as not to reveal their identities. Names, institutional affiliation and contact information should not be disclosed to authors.
5. Manuscript evaluation
Reviewers should base their assessment on relevant criteria with key emphasis on the outstanding features of the text, validity, originality, clarity and context, strength and weaknesses, and significance. Additionally, reviewers should note flaws prohibiting publication, if any, methodology, quality of data presentation, appropriate use of statistics, existence of inflammatory material and suggested improvements.
6. AI Use by Reviewers
Reviewer selection is based primarily on expertise and in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. AI generative tools, despite various enhancements, have considerable limitations. Therefore, reviewers are advised to desist from uploading manuscripts into AI generative tools. Reviewers should also declare the use of AI tools in their evaluation for transparency and accountability.
7. Conclusion
The peer review process, based on a tripartite mutual trust, is fundamental to editing scholarly articles. Therefore, the essence of reviewers’ cannot be downplayed as they play a crucial role in setting the standard and concisely outlining the bar for field contribution.
Instructions to Peer reviewers
As a peer reviewer for Kabarak Law Review, your expertise is invaluable in upholding the journal’s academic standards. You will typically receive an email invitation to review a submission, which you may accept or decline based on your availability and expertise. If you accept, regular follow-up emails will be sent to check on your progress and ensure timely completion.
When evaluating submissions, focus on the following as per the peer review form;
- Assessing whether the manuscript offers a novel contribution to legal scholarship, supported by sound methodology and robust evidence.
- Ensuring arguments are logically presented, with clear prose and coherent organisation. Provide specific suggestions where improvements are needed.
- Verifying adherence to referencing styles and flagging any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or unattributed sources.
- Offering balanced, courteous critiques that note the strengths and suggest actionable revisions.
Lastly, all reviews are confidential, and your timely response is greatly appreciated to help maintain the journal’s publication schedule. Should you require an extension, please notify the editorial team promptly. Your careful evaluation ensures the continued quality of Kabarak Law Review.
