| | | | |


Title page || Peer Review

Information on the Peer Review Process

Each submission undergoes an anonymous peer review process. Each article is reviewed by at least two peer reviewers who share a common field of legal specialization with the author. The peer reviewers express their views on the content, form, and timeliness of the submission.

One of the reviewers will be a student at the local law faculty. In-faculty review is managed by experienced mentors, but the students who seek to improve their reasoning and drafting skills or erudition, are the true driving force behind the Working Paper Series. Working papers thus creates a domain for the effective collaboration of experienced scholars and students, who take part in managing the issues, or writing their first legal manuscripts for publication.

When selecting the peer reviewers of a submitted paper, editors aim to select reviewers who are not in the same office, nor employed at the same department, as the author of the submission. The names of the reviewers are never provided to the authors.

The reviewers may

  1. rate the submission as submitted for immediate publication
  2. recommend the submission as suitable for publication after the indicated editing is made, or
  3. refuse the publication of a submission, in which case they must provide a compelling reason for doing so. 

The peers' opinions are sent back to the author so that (s)he has the a chance to incorporate these comments into the text of the submission.

Editors seek prompt, but not reckless, peer reviews. The review process usually takes no more than 4 weeks, and the author is immediately notified upon its completion.

The formal aspects of the published text and the lingual or grammatical errors are the sole responsibility of the author. Editors correct only content-related mistakes in received manuscripts.