Peer review is the heart of the journal. 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.
How review works
Articles are reviewed double-anonymized: reviewers do not know the author’s identity, and the author does not learn the reviewers’. Responses and comments 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 as the due date approaches, 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.
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. 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.
For reviewers
Detailed guidance for referees, including confidentiality and conflicts, is on the reviewer guidelines page.
Journal policies
Aims & Scope · Author Guidelines · Peer Review · Publication Ethics · Copyright · Privacy · Editorial Board · Reviewer Guidelines