Guidelines for Reviewers

These notes set out what we ask and how the process runs.

What we ask you to assess

Judge the work, not the author. We look to you 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. A recommendation is most useful to us and to the author when it is candid and specific.

Confidentiality

The manuscript is unpublished and confidential. Please do not share it, quote it, or cite it, and delete your copy once your review is filed.

Use of AI

The journal’s AI Policy sets a general rule on confidentiality: “Unpublished work submitted to the journal is confidential. It may only be submitted to AI tools whose terms preserve that confidentiality, by explicitly not retaining the submitted work to train models or keeping the manuscript indefinitely.”

Of referees in particular, it says:

• A referee should read the manuscript in full and form an initial judgment on the quality of the paper without AI assistance. A recommendation may not be based on an AI summary or analysis of the paper as a substitute for reading it, and no part of the referee recommendations should be generated by AI.
• Once a referee has formed an independent assessment of the paper, AI tools may be used to help test their judgment and refine it. In particular, referees may use AI for feedback on whether they might have misread the paper, missed a response to an objection or concern, missed important literature recommendations, or to adjust tone and detail in feedback to make comments shared with the author more constructive.
• Only AI models that maintain confidentiality, as described above, may be used, and it is the responsibility of a referee not to submit a manuscript to an AI service if they have not verified that it passes this confidentiality requirement. If AI is used, referees are to remember the limits of most AI models: particularly in their defaulting to mainstream, consensus views, and in siding with the end user’s comments or criticisms.
• Referees should disclose AI use in their confidential comments to the editor, in keeping with the general acknowledgment principle above.

The review form asks you to confirm the AI Policy and to disclose any AI use; that disclosure goes to the editor alone.

Anonymity

Articles are reviewed double-anonymized: you should not know the author’s identity, and the author will not learn yours. Please do not try to discover who wrote the manuscript. If you happen to recognize the work, tell the editor, who will decide whether to reassign it. Discussion notes, case studies, responses, and invited peer responses are reviewed single-anonymized.

Conflicts of interest

Please decline if you have a personal, professional, or institutional connection that could compromise your judgment, including a shared institution with the author or recent collaboration. When in doubt, tell the editor and let them decide.

Timeline

We ask for reviews within three months, and send one brief reminder about two weeks before your due date. If you need longer, or find you must withdraw, let the editor know early so the process is not held up.

Filing your review

When you agree to review, we send the manuscript and a private link to your report. On that page you will choose a recommendation and write your comments to the author, along with an optional confidential note to the editor that the author never sees. You will also confirm the AI policy and either disclose any AI use or confirm that you used none. The link is yours alone; please do not forward it.

The recommendations

• 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.

On major revisions

If you recommend major revisions, the form will ask whether you wish to see the revised manuscript. Some referees prefer to review the new version; others are content to let the editor judge whether their concerns were met. Either is welcome, and your choice decides whether the revised paper is sent back to you.

With thanks for the time and judgment you lend to the journal. Questions are welcome at [email protected].