Peer Review Process

The Mensrea Law Review upholds rigorous double-blind peer review standards while maintaining an efficient and transparent editorial workflow. Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure objectivity and ethical integrity.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

The journal employs a two-stage review process:

  • Initial Screening: Editor-in-Chief assesses alignment with scope and similarity/plagiarism requirements (Turnitin).
  • Double-Blind Review: At least two independent experts evaluate the manuscript. Status is marked as "Under Review".
  • Revision: Authors are notified once reviews are complete ("Required Reviews Complete") to address feedback.

Peer Review of Referred Papers

For manuscripts referred from supporting journals, editors may decide to accept, reject, or request revisions based on existing reviews. Additional external reviews may be sought where necessary.

Summary of the Review Workflow
  1. Manuscript submission.
  2. Technical & editorial screening (Plagiarism check).
  3. Double-blind peer review (min. 2 reviewers).
  4. Editorial decision & author revision.
  5. Resubmission & evaluation.
  6. Final decision, copyediting, & publication.

Editorial Decisions
  • • Accept Submission: Meets academic standards.
  • • Revisions Required: Minor/major changes needed.
  • • Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions required.
  • • Resubmit Elsewhere: Outside the journal's scope.
  • • Decline Submission: Rejected.

Review Workflow Diagram:

Peer Review Process Diagram

In accordance with publication ethics, all manuscripts are treated as confidential until publication.