The peer review process for Siyasah Dusturiyah: State Law Review is designed to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, methodological rigour, and scholarly contribution in constitutional and political law. Adopting a double-masked review system, where authors and reviewers remain anonymous, ensures impartial evaluations while maintaining transparency in editorial decision-making. This process involves multiple stages, from initial submission to final publication, with clearly defined roles for authors, editors, and reviewers. Below, we outline the comprehensive workflow that governs manuscript evaluation, emphasizing adherence to ethical guidelines, plagiarism checks, and iterative revisions to refine scholarly output.

Overview of the Peer Review Workflow

The peer review process at Siyasah Dusturiyah: State Law Review follows a structured pathway to balance efficiency with thoroughness. Key stages include manuscript submission, editorial screening, plagiarism detection, expert review, decision-making, and post-acceptance preparation. Each phase ensures that published articles contribute meaningfully to legal scholarship while aligning with the journal's focus on constitutional theory, governance, and political jurisprudence.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Authors submit manuscripts electronically through the journal's online submission system, ensuring compliance with formatting guidelines outlined in the Author Instructions. The Editorial Office conducts an initial assessment to verify adherence to technical requirements, such as word count, citation style, and structural elements (e.g., abstract, keywords, and section headings). Submissions that fail to meet these criteria are returned to authors for corrections before proceeding.

At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) evaluates the manuscript's alignment with the journal's aims and scope, assessing its originality, theoretical framework, and potential contribution to existing literature. Manuscripts deemed outside the journal's purview or lacking scholarly novelty are rejected without further review.

2. Plagiarism Check and Ethical Compliance

All manuscripts passing initial screening undergo a similarity check using Turnitin software to detect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation practices. The journal maintains a strict ≤15% similarity threshold, excluding properly quoted references. Cases exceeding this threshold are either rejected or returned to authors with a request to address flagged content.

Additionally, the Editorial Office verifies that submissions comply with ethical standards, including disclosures of funding sources, conflicts of interest, and institutional review board approvals for empirical studies.

3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The EIC or assigned Handling Editor identifies at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's area. Reviewers are selected based on their publication record, academic affiliations, and prior experience in peer review. To minimize bias, reviewers are excluded if they have collaborated with the author(s) within the past five years or have competing financial interests.

Invitations include the manuscript's abstract and a request to confirm availability within a stipulated timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks). If a reviewer declines, alternative experts are invited until the required number of reviewers is secured.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript without knowing the author's identity during the double-masked review phase, and vice versa. Reviewers assess the following aspects:

• Originality: Does the manuscript present novel insights or challenge existing paradigms?
• Methodological Rigour: Are the research design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and reproducible?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the argument logically organized and clearly articulated?
• Theoretical and Practical Contribution: How does the work advance legal scholarship or inform policy?
• Ethical Compliance: Are all ethical guidelines followed, including proper attribution and avoiding discriminatory language?

Reviewers submit detailed reports with recommendations categorized as:

• Accept Without Revisions (rare, reserved for exceptional submissions),
• Accept with Minor Revisions (address specific grammatical or stylistic issues),
• Accept with Major Revisions (substantive changes to methodology, analysis, or conclusions),
• Resubmit for Re-Review (conditional rejection requiring significant overhaul), or
• Reject (outright rejection due to irreparable flaws).

5. Editorial Decision and Author Notification

The Handling Editor consolidates reviewer feedback and makes a final decision, which is communicated to the author alongside anonymized reviewer comments. In conflicting reviews, the editor may seek additional evaluations or cast the deciding vote. Authors typically receive a decision within 8–12 weeks of submission, though complex cases may extend this timeline.

6. Revision and Resubmission

For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are granted 2–4 weeks to address critiques and submit a revised draft. The revised submission must include a point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer's comment was addressed. The Handling Editor then evaluates whether revisions suffice or require further peer review.

7. Post-Acceptance Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, where language editors refine grammar, syntax, and adherence to house style. Authors review galley proofs to approve final changes before publication. The journal publishes articles online immediately after proof approval, followed by inclusion in a scheduled issue.

Ethical Considerations and Author Responsibilities

The journal enforces strict policies against plagiarism, data fabrication, and duplicate submission. Authors must certify their work is original and disclose any prior dissemination (e.g., conference presentations). Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, refrain from using unpublished data for personal gain, and declare conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

The peer review process at Siyasah Dusturiyah: State Law Review exemplifies a robust framework for ensuring scholarly excellence in constitutional and political law. The journal fosters a culture of intellectual rigour and accountability by integrating double-masked evaluations, rigorous plagiarism checks, and iterative author-editor dialogue. Future enhancements include adopting open peer review models to increase transparency and exploring AI tools to streamline manuscript matching with reviewers. These steps will further solidify the journal's reputation as a cornerstone of legal scholarship in the Global South and beyond.