Reviewer Guideline

Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for Lex Publica, your primary role is to critically assess and provide constructive, impartial feedback on manuscripts within your field of expertise. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the article’s strengths and weaknesses, ensuring that it meets the journal's academic and ethical standards. You should offer suggestions to improve the clarity, coherence, and impact of the paper, ensuring it is relevant to the field of law, particularly with a focus on qualitative research methodologies.

Before Reviewing:

1. Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?
If you receive a manuscript outside your area of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible. You may recommend an alternative reviewer who is better suited for the topic, especially if it involves a specialized legal field or a qualitative research method.

2. Do you have sufficient time to review the manuscript?
The review process should be completed within two weeks. If you need additional time, please inform the editor immediately, or suggest another reviewer.

3. Are there any conflicts of interest?
While conflicts of interest do not automatically disqualify you from reviewing a manuscript, it is essential to disclose any potential conflicts to the editor prior to beginning the review. If you are uncertain, feel free to contact the editorial office for guidance.

Review Process

When reviewing the manuscript, please consider the following:

Title:
- Does the title accurately represent the focus of the article and its legal context?

Abstract:
- Does the abstract clearly reflect the main objectives, methods, findings, and contributions of the article?

Introduction:
- Does the introduction provide a clear overview of the research question or problem being addressed?
- Does it adequately explain the legal context and outline the methods used in the study?

Content Evaluation

Originality and Suitability for Lex Publica:
- Is there a risk of plagiarism in the manuscript (e.g., similarities greater than 20%)?
- Does the manuscript contribute new insights or perspectives in the field of law, particularly with a focus on qualitative research?
- Is the manuscript aligned with the journal's goals and standards?

Scope:
- Does the article fit within the scope of Lex Publica, which focuses on law, legal theory, and qualitative analysis?
- Is it of significant relevance to current legal debates, practices, or issues?

Research Quality:
- Does the research make a substantial contribution to the field of law, offering deep insights into legal systems, policies, or concepts?
- Are the findings well-supported by qualitative data and analysis?

Methodology

Data Collection and Methodology:
- Has the author provided a clear explanation of how data was collected, especially considering the qualitative nature of the research?
- Are the research methods clearly described, including interviews, case studies, or document analysis?
- Is the theoretical framework used appropriate for addressing the research questions, and is it rooted in relevant legal theory?

Sampling and Analysis:
- Is the sampling method appropriate for the legal context?
- Are the tools, instruments, and analytical techniques used to assess data thoroughly explained?

Results

Clarity and Presentation of Results:
- Are the research findings clearly presented, with logical connections to the legal questions explored?
- Is the interpretation of the findings grounded in the legal and theoretical framework provided?

Discussion and Conclusion

Interpretation of Results:
- Are the conclusions drawn from the results well-reasoned and supported by the data?
- Does the author adequately compare their findings with prior legal research and theories?
- Are there any contradictions between the current study's results and previous research or legal theories?
- Does the conclusion offer insights into potential legal reforms, practices, or future research directions?

Writing Style

- Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, and legally coherent language?
- Is the article accessible to an academic legal audience, with appropriate legal terminology?
- Does the manuscript demonstrate high-quality writing, with proper grammar and structure?

Tables and Figures

- Do any tables, figures, or other visual aids appropriately support the article’s arguments?
- Are they easy to interpret and relevant to the qualitative analysis?

References

- Are the references complete and up to date?
- Do they support the article’s arguments and reflect significant legal literature?

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism:
If you suspect plagiarism or recognize substantial similarities with prior publications, please inform the editor immediately.

Data Integrity and Fraud:
If you suspect that any data is fabricated or manipulated, please bring this to the editor’s attention.

Confidentiality:
All review comments should remain confidential. Do not share the manuscript with any third parties or contact the author directly unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

Final Review:
- Complete your review by the designated deadline.
- Your honest feedback is essential in the editorial decision-making process.
- Please provide comments that are constructive, and be sure to distinguish between feedback intended for the editor and that which is appropriate for the author.