NLSIR PEER REVIEW POLICY
Every paper published in NLSIR is peer reviewed by an expert in that particular field of law. The peer review process ensures that the paper matches up to the highest standards of legal writing. Through this process, the peer reviewer also assesses the factual and legal consistency of the paper.
Depending upon the subject matter of the paper, it is sent for peer review to an expert in that particular field of law. The peer reviewer may recommend that the paper be accepted (without any changes), or that it be accepted only after incorporating major or minor changes to the paper, or they may recommend that the paper be rejected. The editors will communicate the peer reviewer’s decision and comments to the author. If the editors deem it suitable, the author will be given the chance to incorporate the changes suggested by the peer reviewer. The editors will determine if the author has satisfactorily incorporated the changes suggested by the peer reviewer, in the paper. Depending upon the editors’ discretion, there may be more than one round of edits at this stage. If the editors believe that the relevant changes have not been made to the paper, they may choose to reject it. However, if the editors believe that all the necessary changes have been incorporated, and are satisfied with the paper, they may recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in NLSIR. This final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the paper will be communicated to the authors by the editors.
Type of peer review
NLSIR follow a double blind peer review system. This means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the peer reviewer, and the author would is not aware of the identity of the peer reviewer.
Queries regarding peer reviewer’s comments
NLSIR editors shall act as a liaison between the author and the peer reviewer. Therefore, if the author has any queries regarding the peer reviewer’s comments, they may inform the same to the editors, who shall communicate the queries to the peer reviewer, and shall get back to the author.
Number of peer reviewers
If both the editors recommend it, the paper is sent to one peer reviewer. However, there may be further rounds of peer reviews, by different peer reviewers, if the first peer reviewer suggests the same.
NLSIR solicits individuals who are well-versed, and have years of experience, in a particular field of law, to peer review its papers. It maintains quality control by ensuring that only practitioners, academics, or policy experts in a particular field of law peer review a paper.
Conflict of interest
Authors are requested to kindly disclose the names of those individuals with whom they have previously discussed the paper. These individuals will be barred from peer reviewing the paper. Any failure or mischief on the part of authors in this regard will be dealt with strictly. While soliciting peer reviewers, NLSIR confirms that the peer reviewer has not previously engaged with the relevant paper. This is done keeping in mind the anonymity of the author.
Metrics of review
The peer reviewers are recommended to follow the metrics mentioned below while reviewing the paper. Authors should note that the following is only an illustrative list.
- Identification of issues
- Depth of research
- Analyses, interpretations, and conclusions
- Clarity of argument
- Originality and innovation
- Contribution to the jurisprudence on the issue
- Engagement with the existing literature
- Appropriate and up-to-date references
- Structure and organisation of the paper
The peer reviewer may recommend that the paper be accepted without any comments, or that it be accepted with major or minor changes, or that the paper be rejected. Based on the editors’ discretion, the authors may be given the chance to incorporate the peer reviewer’s suggestions into their paper. This process may entail one or multiple round of reviews. If the editors believe that the paper is satisfactory and the peer reviewer’s comments have been incorporated, they may accept it for publication in NLSIR. However, after these rounds, if the editors feel that the paper is still unsuitable for the Journal, they may recommend that the paper be rejected.
Incorporation of peer reviewer’s comments
It is recommended that authors adequately incorporate at least a substantial portion of the changes suggested by the peer reviewer. The editors may recommend that the paper be accepted for publication only if they believe that a substantial portion of the peer reviewer’s comments have been satisfactorily incorporated. The paper may be rejected if the editors believe that the author has not adequately engaged with the peer reviewer’s comments. If the author believes that any of the changes suggested by the peer reviewer are not to be incorporated, they are requested to kindly mention it and provide sufficient reasons for why the change need not be made. The final discretion regarding the adequacy of the changes made to the paper lies with the editors.
Timeline of peer review
We endeavour to get back to the authors with the peer reviewer’s comments within 1 month from the day it is sent to the peer reviewer. However, this 1 month timeline may get extended, in certain cases, due to delays by the peer reviewers. Additionally, this timeline may get further extended if there are subsequent rounds of review.
NLSIR will provide the authors with regular updates regarding the status of their paper. We shall also inform the authors regarding the peer reviewer’s comments as soon as we receive them. However, a final confirmation regarding the acceptance or rejection of the paper can be provided only after the peer reviewer’s comments have been adequately incorporated in the paper.
Peer reviewer feedback
Even if the peer reviewer recommends that a paper be rejected, they are requested to kindly provide feedback regarding the reasons for rejection and the shortcomings of the paper.
Past Peer Reviewers of the NLSIR
The following are some of the peer reviewers who have previously reviewed papers published in NLSIR:
|· Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran||· Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar|
|· Prof. Aparna Chandra||· Prof. Arpan Banerjee|
|· Prof. Mrinal Satish||· Ms. Swagata Raha|
|· Prof. Shivprasad Swaminathan||· Ms. Akila RS|
|· Prof. James Nedumpara||· Ms. Sanhita Ambast|
|· Prof. Sanyukta Chowdhury||· Sandeep Challa|
|· Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar||· Prof. Faiz Tajuddin|
|· Prof. Abhayraj Naik||· Mr. Abhinav Sekhri|
|· Mr. Kaustav Saha||· Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu|