Peer Review

This page sets out how submissions are evaluated, who evaluates them, and how decisions are reached.

Initial screening

Every submission is first read by the editor, who judges its fit with the journal’s scope and its readiness for review. Work that falls outside the journal’s aims, or that is not yet ready, may be declined at this stage without external review.

As the AI Policy puts it: “AI tools inform initial review of papers: in particular in checking for undisclosed AI-generated text and in an initial assessment of the paper’s engagement with the relevant literature along with in the identification of a pool of suitable referees. This occurs after the paper is read and an initial editorial judgment is made.” “All editorial decisions are made by the judgment of the editors.”

How review works

Articles are reviewed double-anonymized: reviewers do not know the author’s identity, and the author does not learn the reviewers’. Discussion notes, case studies, responses, and invited peer responses are reviewed single-anonymized. A submission usually goes to two reviewers, and sometimes to one, chosen for their expertise and for the absence of any conflict of interest with the author.

Timeline

We ask reviewers to return their reports within three months. Reviewers receive a reminder two weeks before the due date, and the editor follows up if a report runs late, so that a submission is not held up.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers are asked for a reasoned view of the manuscript’s contribution to the natural law tradition, the originality of its argument, the rigor with which that argument is made, its engagement with the relevant literature, and the clarity of its prose. Under the AI Policy, “A referee should read the manuscript in full and form an initial judgment on the quality of the paper without AI assistance.”

Decisions

Drawing on the reports, the editor reaches one of four decisions and conveys it to the author by email:

• Accept. Publish as is, or with trivial edits.
• Minor revisions. Sound, with small changes needed.
• Major revisions. Promising, but in need of substantial work and another look.
• Reject. Not suitable for the journal.

Revisions

A revised manuscript is uploaded through a private link and recorded as a new round, so that the full history of a paper is preserved. Each round carries its own AI disclosure. When a reviewer recommends major revisions, that reviewer may choose whether to see the revised version; the revised paper is returned only to reviewers who asked to see it.

Appeals

An author who believes a decision rests on a clear misunderstanding may appeal by writing to the editor with specific reasons. The editor will consider the appeal and may seek a further opinion. Appeals are decided at the editor’s discretion. Appeals of a decision made under the AI Policy go to the journal’s associate editors.

For reviewers

Detailed guidance for referees, including confidentiality, conflicts, and the use of AI, is on the reviewer guidelines page.