CLR Reviewer Guide

1. Introduction

Peer review in CLR is conducted under a double-anonymized model, where neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. This process upholds impartiality, academic rigor, and editorial integrity. Reviewers play a vital role by offering objective and constructive feedback to authors and editors.

Key Ethical Principles

• Confidentiality: Treat manuscript content as confidential and do not share it with anyone outside the CLR editorial team.
• Objectivity: Base evaluations on the manuscript’s quality and scholarly merit. Avoid personal criticism and bias.
• Conflict of Interest: If you have a potential conflict (personal, financial, institutional, etc.), please inform the editor and recuse yourself if necessary.
• Timeliness: Complete reviews by the agreed deadline or inform the editorial team if more time is needed.
• No Misuse of Information: Do not use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal gain.
• Integrity and AI Disclosure: Disclose any use of artificial intelligence tools in preparing your review. If you involve a junior colleague in writing the review, inform the editor and identify that colleague.

2. Step-by-Step Peer Review

1. Initial Suitability

   • Confirm the manuscript aligns with your expertise.
   • Disclose any conflict of interest.
   • Accept the assignment only if you can complete it on time.

2. Reading and Assessing

   • Examine the manuscript’s structure, methodology, legal references, and overall argument.
   • Assess its originality, clarity, and relevance to CLR’s scope.
   • Check that legal citations (including national case law, ECtHR cases, or other jurisprudence) are accurate and properly referenced (e.g., HUDOC for ECtHR).

3. Providing Constructive Feedback

   • Offer specific, respectful comments on strengths and areas to improve.
   • Verify sources, reliability of data, and adherence to ethical standards (e.g., ethical approval, no plagiarism).
   • If you detect potential issues with sources, translation accuracy, or research misconduct, alert the editorial team promptly.

4. Formulating a Recommendation
   After reviewing the manuscript, please choose one of the following options:

   • Accept (the manuscript can be published as is or with minimal edits handled by the editorial team)
   • Revise (the manuscript requires revisions; specify whether major or minor)
   • Reject (if the manuscript fails to meet CLR’s standards or scope)

5. Follow-Up (if applicable)

   • If the manuscript is revised and resubmitted, re-check the sections previously identified as problematic to ensure the author has adequately addressed your concerns.

3. Training and Continuous Improvement

We encourage all reviewers to continue developing their peer review skills. Refer to the following recognized programs and resources:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• EASE Peer Review Toolkit
• Annual CLR Reviewer Webinars

CLR strongly values reviewers who stay current with best practices. We welcome your participation in ongoing training and recommend you maintain at least one peer review certification per year if you wish to continue collaborating with our journal.

 

4. Recognition

We encourage reviewers to link their peer review activities with ORCID, Publons, or other platforms. Simply inform the managing editor if you wish to have your work recognized.

For any questions regarding the review process, please contact the Editorial Team.

 

Thank you for contributing your time, expertise, and diligence as a reviewer for CLR!

By adhering to these guidelines, you help maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing.