Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Kotaragama Comparativa is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality through a rigorous peer review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough evaluation by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of legal studies. This process ensures that only high-quality, original, and academically sound research is published.

1. Type of Peer Review
Kotaragama Comparativa employs a single-blind peer review process, which means:
  • Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • This approach allows reviewers to assess the manuscript with full context while maintaining their anonymity to encourage honest and objective feedback.
  • The identity of the reviewers is kept strictly confidential throughout the entire process.
2. Peer Review Process Flow
Step 1 Submission
Authors submit their manuscript through the OJS online submission system. The system automatically sends a confirmation email to the corresponding author.
Step 2 Initial Screening (Desk Review)
The Editorial Team conducts an initial check to ensure the manuscript:
  • Falls within the Focus and Scope of the journal
  • Follows the Author Guidelines and template
  • Has a similarity index below 25% (checked via Turnitin)
  • Is free from obvious plagiarism or ethical issues
If the manuscript fails this stage, it will be desk-rejected and returned to the author.
Step 3 Assignment to Reviewers
If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of legal studies. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, availability, and absence of conflict of interest.
Step 4 Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on predefined criteria (see Section 3) and provide detailed feedback. They submit their recommendations through the OJS system within the agreed timeframe (typically 3–4 weeks).
Step 5 Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is (rare).
  • Minor Revision: Small corrections are needed before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Significant changes are required; the manuscript will be re-reviewed.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
Step 6 Author Revision
Authors receive the reviewers' comments and the editorial decision. They must revise the manuscript according to the feedback and submit a point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment was addressed. The revision must be submitted within 2 weeks.
Step 7 Re-Review (if necessary)
For manuscripts requiring major revision, the revised version may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. The editor will make a final decision based on the revised manuscript and the reviewers' feedback.
Step 8 Final Acceptance
Once the manuscript meets all requirements, the Editor-in-Chief issues a formal Letter of Acceptance to the corresponding author.
Step 9 Production and Publication
The accepted manuscript enters the production stage, which includes:
  • Copyediting and language polishing
  • Typesetting and layout design
  • DOI registration (Crossref)
  • Proofreading by the author
  • Online publication in the assigned issue
3. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
  • Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript present new ideas, perspectives, or findings in the field of comparative criminal law?
  • Relevance to Scope: Is the topic aligned with the Focus and Scope of the journal?
  • Quality of Writing: Is the manuscript well-written, clear, and free from grammatical errors?
  • Structure and Organization: Does the manuscript follow a logical structure (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)?
  • Methodology: Is the research method appropriate, clearly explained, and properly applied?
  • Literature Review: Are relevant previous studies adequately cited and discussed?
  • Analysis and Discussion: Is the analysis critical, in-depth, and well-supported by evidence?
  • References: Are the references up-to-date, relevant, and properly formatted?
  • Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical standards (no plagiarism, proper citation, etc.)?
  • Contribution to the Field: Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to legal scholarship?
4. Estimated Timeline
Initial Screening (Desk Review) 1 week
Peer Review Process 3–4 weeks
Editorial Decision 1 week
Author Revision 2 weeks
Re-Review (if applicable) 2–3 weeks
Production and Publication 2–3 weeks
Total Estimated Time 10–14 weeks (2.5–3.5 months)
5. Conflict of Interest Policy
To ensure the integrity of the peer review process, Kotaragama Comparativa strictly enforces a conflict of interest policy:
  • Reviewers must decline the review if they have a personal, professional, or financial relationship with the author(s) that could bias their evaluation.
  • Reviewers cannot review manuscripts from their own institution or from researchers they have recently collaborated with.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.
  • Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts at the time of submission.
6. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality
Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical standards:
  • Confidentiality: The manuscript and its content must be kept strictly confidential. Reviewers cannot share the manuscript with others without the editor's permission.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted in an objective and professional manner, focusing on the academic merit of the work.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers must complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe. If unable to do so, they must inform the editor promptly.
  • No Personal Attacks: Reviews must be respectful and free from personal criticism or discriminatory language.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
7. Appeal Process
If authors disagree with the editorial decision (e.g., rejection or major revision), they may submit a formal appeal:
  • Appeals must be sent in writing to the Editor-in-Chief via email at journal.kotaragama@gmail.com.
  • The appeal must include a detailed justification explaining why the decision should be reconsidered.
  • The Editorial Board will review the appeal and may consult additional reviewers if necessary.
  • A final decision will be provided within 14 working days.
  • The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final.
8. Reviewer Recognition
Kotaragama Comparativa values the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their efforts through:
  • Annual Acknowledgment: All reviewers who contributed during the year are listed on the journal's website and in the annual issue.
  • Reviewer Certificate: Reviewers receive a digital certificate of appreciation for their service.
  • Reviewer Credits: The journal partners with Reviewer Credits, a global service that tracks and verifies peer review contributions.
  • Priority Consideration: Active reviewers may receive priority consideration when submitting their own manuscripts to the journal.
Summary: The peer review process at Kotaragama Comparativa is designed to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity. Through a rigorous single-blind review by at least two independent experts, the journal maintains its commitment to publishing original, relevant, and impactful research in the field of comparative criminal law. The entire process typically takes 10–14 weeks, from submission to publication.
10 days
Submission to First Decision
40 days
Review Process
15 days
Production & Publication
Total: ~3 months
From submission to online publication
Questions about the review process? If you have any questions or concerns about the peer review process, please contact the Editorial Team at journal.kotaragama@gmail.com. We are committed to transparency and will address your inquiries promptly.