Every manuscript submitted to the International Journal of Integrated Law Review (ISSN 2582-7014) is assessed by double-blind peer review. Authors do not learn the identity of their reviewers, and reviewers are not told who wrote the manuscript they are reading.

Why double-blind

Legal scholarship is a small world. Reviewers who can see an author's name can also see their institution, their seniority and their previous positions, and that knowledge is difficult to set aside. Blinding both directions keeps the assessment on the argument rather than on the person making it. It matters most for the authors this journal particularly wants to reach: research scholars, early-career academics and practitioners without an established publication record.

The stages

1. Submission received. An acknowledgement is sent to the corresponding author.
2. Editorial screening. The editorial office checks that the manuscript is within scope, is formatted per the Author Guidelines, carries proper footnote citation, and is not under consideration elsewhere. Manuscripts that fail screening are returned at this stage with reasons.
3. Similarity screening. Every manuscript is run through Turnitin before it goes to review. See the threshold below.
4. Assignment to reviewers. The manuscript is anonymised and sent to two independent reviewers with subject expertise. Reviewers who declare a conflict of interest are replaced.
5. Reviewer reports. Each reviewer returns a recommendation with written reasons.
6. Editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision. Where the two reviewers disagree, the Editor-in-Chief either decides on the record before them or appoints a third reviewer.
7. Revision. Authors respond to the reports. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.
8. Acceptance and production. Copy-editing, proofing, and scheduling into an issue.

Possible decisions

Decision	What it means
Accept	Publishable as submitted, subject to copy-editing.
Minor revision	Publishable once specific, limited points are addressed.
Major revision	The argument or its support needs substantial work. Resubmission is invited but acceptance is not guaranteed.
Reject	Not publishable in this journal. Reasons are given.

Similarity screening

Manuscripts are screened with Turnitin. A similarity index above 10 per cent, excluding properly attributed quotations and the bibliography, is returned to the author. Any indication of plagiarism, self-plagiarism or undisclosed reuse of the author's own earlier published work results in rejection. Where a manuscript has already been published, the matter is handled under the Publication Ethics policy.

Timelines

The journal aims to return a first decision within a reasonable period of submission and to notify acceptance within two weeks of the reviewers' reports being complete. These are targets, not guarantees: a manuscript that needs a third reviewer, or one submitted close to an issue deadline, will take longer. Authors who have heard nothing are welcome to write to editor.ijilr@gmail.com quoting their submission reference.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers must not share it, quote it, circulate it, or use its findings in their own work before publication. Reviewers must not contact authors directly.

Appeals

An author who believes a decision rested on a factual error or a material misunderstanding may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days, setting out the specific point in the reviewer's report that is said to be wrong. Appeals are not a route to a second opinion on a matter of academic judgement. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on an appeal is final.

Related: Editorial Workflow · Responsibility of Reviewers · Publication Ethics