Instructions to Reviewers

Accept an invitation only if you have appropriate expertise, can complete the work within the agreed period and have disclosed relevant competing interests. Contact the editor if circumstances change.

Assess the contribution

• Is the research question clear and significant for the journal’s readership?
• Does the manuscript develop an original argument or reliable synthesis?
• Are legal authorities accurate, current to the stated date and used in context?
• Are jurisdictional comparisons justified and their limitations recognised?
• Are empirical methods, sampling and analysis appropriate and transparent?
• Are ethical, confidentiality and data-availability issues addressed?
• Do conclusions follow from the evidence and engage fairly with competing views?

Separate essential revisions from suggestions. Identify concrete passages and explain the reason for each concern. Recommend references only when directly relevant; do not request citations to increase your own or the journal’s metrics.

Confidentiality and integrity

Do not contact authors directly, seek to identify anonymised authors, share the manuscript, or use unpublished ideas for personal advantage. Do not upload confidential material to external AI tools. Obtain the editor’s agreement before involving another person in a review.

Report suspected errors or misconduct privately to the editor, with supporting evidence. Keep author-facing comments professional. The recommendation is advice to the editor, who makes the decision after considering all relevant information.