Peer review is the part of publishing that decides whether the journal is worth reading. These duties apply to everyone who agrees to review for the International Journal of Integrated Law Review.

1. Accept only what you can do

A reviewer who does not have expertise in the manuscript's subject, or who cannot return a report within the agreed period, should decline promptly. Declining quickly is a service to the author; sitting on a manuscript is not.

2. Confidentiality

A manuscript received for review is a confidential document. It must not be shown or discussed with anyone except with the editor's express authorisation. It must not be copied, retained after the review is complete, uploaded to any third-party service — including generative AI tools — or used in the reviewer's own work.

3. Objectivity

Reviews must be objective and reasoned. Personal criticism of the author is never appropriate. A reviewer who disagrees with a manuscript's conclusion should explain why the argument fails, not simply record disagreement. Statements like "this is weak" are not review; the reviewer must say what is weak and on what ground.

4. Anonymity

Review is double-blind. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the author, and must not contact the author directly at any point. If a reviewer recognises the author's identity and believes it creates a conflict, they must tell the editor.

5. Sources and attribution

Reviewers should identify relevant authority the author has missed — a leading judgment, a statutory amendment, an important article on the point. Where a reviewer notices substantial similarity to another published work, they must alert the editor.

6. Conflict of interest

A reviewer must decline where they have a competing interest arising from a collaborative, financial, institutional or personal connection with any of the authors, or with an institution connected to the paper.

7. What a report should contain

• A short statement of what the manuscript argues, so the editor can see the reviewer has understood it.
• An assessment of originality — does this add anything to the existing literature?
• An assessment of the legal analysis: are the authorities correctly stated, current, and used properly?
• An assessment of structure, clarity and citation practice.
• Specific, numbered points the author must address, distinguishing what is essential from what is a suggestion.
• A clear recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

8. Timeliness

Reviewers are asked to return reports within the agreed period. A reviewer who realises they will be late should say so early, so the editor can decide whether to wait or reassign.

9. Courtesy

Many manuscripts come from research scholars and early-career authors receiving their first formal review. A report that is accurate but contemptuous does damage without adding anything. Say what is wrong, say how to fix it, and stop there.

Reviewers are acknowledged annually. To join the reviewer panel, write to editor.ijilr@gmail.com with your area of expertise and a short academic profile.