Reviewer Guidelines – Al Mizan Law Review Journal
Adopted in alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
1. Accept Reviews Only Within Your Expertise
Reviewers shall accept an invitation only if they possess sufficient substantive expertise to evaluate the manuscript fairly and competently. Where expertise is partial, the reviewer must clearly inform the Editor in advance.
2. Declare Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative conflicts of interest. A reviewer shall decline the assignment if impartiality may reasonably be called into question.
3. Maintain Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript content without the express permission of the Editor.
4. Be Objective and Constructive
Reviews shall focus on scholarly merit, methodological rigour, originality, clarity, and relevance to legal scholarship. Feedback must be respectful, evidence‑based, and directed toward improving the paper. Hostile, insulting, or personal remarks are strictly prohibited.
5. Be Timely and Responsive
Reviewers shall respond promptly to review invitations and submit their reviews within the agreed deadline. If delays become unavoidable, the Editor must be notified immediately.
6. Identify Ethical Concerns
Reviewers must inform the Editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research practices, or authorship disputes. Such concerns shall be raised confidentially to the Editor and not directly communicated to the author(s).
7. Do Not Use Unpublished Information
Reviewers shall not use any data, ideas, methods, arguments, or findings from the manuscript for personal advantage, competitive research, or any other purpose prior to publication.
8. Avoid Bias and Discrimination
Reviews must be free from bias on grounds of nationality, gender, race, religion, institutional affiliation, seniority, or political belief. Manuscripts shall be judged solely on academic and legal‑scholarly merit.
9. Provide Clear Recommendations
Reviewers shall provide a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) with full justification. Comments to authors shall be consistent with any confidential comments provided to the Editor.
10. Respect Journal Policies
Reviewers must adhere to the Al Mizan Law Review Journal’s peer‑review model (single‑blind, double‑blind, or open review as specified) and comply with all journal instructions regarding confidentiality, formatting of the review, and ethical standards.
11. Do Not Manipulate Citations
Reviewers shall not request that authors cite their own work merely to increase citation counts or visibility. Any suggestion of citations must be academically justified and genuinely necessary for the manuscript under review.
12. Use AI Tools Responsibly
If permitted by the Journal, AI‑assisted reviewing tools may be used only where the reviewer remains fully accountable for confidentiality, accuracy, and the final judgment. Sensitive manuscript content must not be uploaded to unauthorised or public AI systems.
Approved for use by the Al Mizan Law Review Journal –[28/04/2026]
These guidelines are reviewed periodically to remain consistent with evolving COPE standards.
