Peer review is the heart of the journal, and it depends on the care of its referees. 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The manuscript is unpublished and confidential.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.
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. Responses and comments 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. 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. 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 JNL@francis.edu.