Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to Customary Law Review goes through a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review.

1. Initial screening. The editor checks each submission for fit with the journal's scope, compliance with the author guidelines and template, and similarity level. Manuscripts that fail this stage are returned to the authors or declined within approximately 14 days.

2. Reviewer assignment. Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Where a manuscript engages with Islamic legal sources, at least one reviewer should be competent in reading those sources in the original language.

3. Review. Reviewers are asked to complete their assessment within four to six weeks. They evaluate originality, relevance to the scope, theoretical and methodological soundness, the quality of evidence, and the accuracy of references.

4. Editorial decision. Based on the reviewers' reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions: accept submission, revisions required (minor), resubmit for review (major), or decline submission. When reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

5. Revision. Authors are given two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions, and must submit a response letter explaining how each comment was addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.

6. Final decision and production. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication. Accepted manuscripts then proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading by the authors before publication.

Editors do not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial board are handled by another editor and follow the same review process as all other submissions.