Peer Review Process

 

Editorial Procedures

All manuscripts submitted to Transformative Law Review undergo a preliminary editorial assessment to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, publication ethics, and Author Guidelines. During this stage, the Editorial Team evaluates the completeness of the submission, its conformity with formatting and ethical standards, and its overall suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements, contain significant formatting deficiencies, or raise ethical concerns may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before entering the peer-review process.

Following the preliminary assessment, the Managing Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor, evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, as well as its scholarly quality and methodological soundness. Manuscripts that successfully pass this editorial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor to oversee the peer-review process. Any decision to reject a manuscript at the editorial screening stage (desk rejection) is subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

Submission acknowledgement is typically sent within 24 hours of receipt.
Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Transformative Law Review employs a double-anonymous peer-review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another throughout the evaluation.

Reviewers are appointed by the handling editor, with consultation from the Editor-in-Chief when appropriate, according to their expertise and experience in the manuscript’s subject area. Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers must confirm that no conflicts of interest exist. The peer-review process is normally completed within a maximum period of six (6) weeks.

If the journal publishes special issues, manuscripts submitted to special issues will follow the same double-anonymous peer review process, editorial oversight, conflict-of-interest policy, and quality-control standards as regular submissions.
Conflicts of Interest

The following situations constitute conflicts of interest and must be avoided:

1 The reviewer has co-authored with any author within the past three (3) years.
2 The reviewer currently works at, or closely collaborates with, any author’s institution.
3 The reviewer has or has had a supervisory relationship with any author.
4 The reviewer may gain personal or professional benefit from the review outcome.
5 The reviewer has a close personal relationship, such as family or close friendship, with any author.
6 The reviewer has a direct or indirect financial interest related to the manuscript.
7 Previous collaboration in a large multi-party project or co-organizing an academic event is not considered a conflict by itself.
Editorial Decision and Revision

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. The handling editor communicates the editorial decision and reviewers’ comments to the authors. Possible editorial decisions include:

1 Accept Submission The manuscript meets the journal’s requirements and proceeds to copyediting.
2 Revisions Required The manuscript is accepted in principle pending minor revisions. Authors are typically given one (1) week to revise.
3 Resubmit for Review Substantial revisions are required. Authors must respond point-by-point to reviewers’ comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within three (3) weeks. The revised version may be re-evaluated.
4 Decline Submission The manuscript has serious flaws, does not meet the journal’s standards, or lacks sufficient academic contribution. No resubmission is offered.

If reviewers indicate that additional analyses, evidence, or data are required to support the conclusions, the manuscript may be rejected with an invitation to resubmit once the work is substantially improved.
Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a detailed justification and a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ or editor’s comments to the Managing Editor. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board, who may recommend acceptance, further review, or uphold the rejection. All appeal decisions are final.
Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, language editing if required, author proofreading, and final approval prior to online publication. The print issue is usually released within one to two weeks after the online version is published.
Corrections and Retractions

The corresponding author may request a correction within one (1) week after publication if essential changes are needed. For further information, please refer to the journal’s policy on corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.