Double Blind Peer Review

Peer Review Policy and Process

The Journal of Human Rights Law and Practice (JHRLP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly rigour and research integrity. Every research article, review article, and case comment submitted to the Journal undergoes double-blind peer review, in which the identities of the author(s) and the reviewers are withheld from one another throughout the evaluation.

Our peer-review process is aligned with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is overseen by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

1. Editorial (Desk) Screening

On submission, every manuscript is first screened by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief for scope, originality, structure, adherence to author guidelines, and language quality. Submissions are checked for plagiarism using industry-standard similarity-detection software. Manuscripts that fall outside the Journal's aims and scope, that fail to meet basic scholarly standards, or that exceed acceptable similarity thresholds may be declined without external review (desk rejection).

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor and sent to a minimum of two (2) independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their scholarly record and are required to declare any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. All identifying information is removed from the manuscript before it is shared with reviewers to preserve anonymity.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field of human rights law;
  • Analytical rigour and soundness of legal reasoning;
  • Appropriate and adequate use of primary and secondary authorities;
  • Clarity, structure, and coherence of argument;
  • Accuracy and consistency of citation and referencing;
  • Research and publication ethics, including originality and proper attribution.

4. Editorial Decision

On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept — the manuscript is accepted in its current form;
  • Minor Revisions — the manuscript is accepted subject to minor changes;
  • Major Revisions — the manuscript requires substantial revision and is normally returned for a further round of review;
  • Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal.

Where reviewers' recommendations diverge, the Editor may seek an additional review or exercise editorial judgement. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

5. Indicative Timeline

The Journal endeavours to complete the review process promptly while protecting the quality of assessment. From submission to first decision, the process typically takes 8–10 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds required. Authors are kept informed of the status of their submission through the online submission system.

6. Acceptance Rate

To maintain scholarly selectivity, the Journal operates a competitive review process. The current acceptance rate is approximately 34% of submissions received.

7. Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, discuss, or use any part of a submitted manuscript for their own or others' advantage. Any suspected misconduct—including plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest—is handled in accordance with COPE guidance. Please see our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for full details.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a decision was reached in error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult the Editorial Board. The submission of an appeal does not guarantee a reversal of the original decision.