Reviewer Guide

Reviewer Guidelines

Advances in Public Law and Crime (PLICE)

Professional guidance for reviewers in supporting ethical, rigorous, and constructive double-blind peer review in public law, criminal law, crime studies, justice, governance, and socio-legal research.

Introduction

Advances in Public Law and Crime (PLICE) is committed to maintaining the highest academic, ethical, and professional standards through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers play an essential role in strengthening the quality, credibility, originality, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal. The editorial team sincerely appreciates the expertise, independence, and professional dedication of all reviewers.

Double-Blind Review: Both author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the review process to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers serve as independent subject-matter experts who provide critical, objective, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations help ensure:

Originality — Novelty of legal arguments and contributions

Legal Reasoning — Clarity and strength of analysis

Methodology — Appropriate research framework

Scope Alignment — Fit with PLICE focus areas

Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.

Objectivity

Reviews must be based on scholarly merit without personal, institutional, or discriminatory bias.

Constructive Feedback

Comments should be clear, respectful, and intended to help authors improve their work.

Timeliness

Reviews should be submitted within 14–21 days. Inform the editor if an extension is needed.

Evaluation Criteria

Topical Relevance Manuscript aligned with PLICE focus on public law, criminal law, crime studies, governance, justice, or socio-legal research.
Originality & Contribution New insights, legal arguments, conceptual frameworks, policy implications, or empirical findings.
Legal Reasoning Coherent, well-supported, and logically developed legal analysis.
Research Methodology Appropriate, clearly explained method for doctrinal, normative, empirical, or comparative research.
Use of Sources Relevant, current, credible, and accurately cited legal sources, legislation, and scholarship.
Discussion & Findings Substantive, balanced analysis connected to research objectives.
Conclusion Supported by analysis, clear indication of academic and practical contribution.
Writing Quality Clear, structured, coherent, and written in formal academic language.

Providing Effective Reviews

  • Use professional, respectful, and specific language.
  • Identify both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Support critiques with examples, explanations, or references where relevant.
  • Differentiate between major issues and minor technical corrections.
  • Avoid vague comments and personal criticism.
  • Provide actionable suggestions that can help authors revise the manuscript effectively.

Example of Effective Comment:
Instead of writing: “The legal analysis is weak.”
A more constructive comment would be: “The legal analysis in Section 4 would be strengthened by adding relevant statutory provisions, recent court decisions, and scholarly references to support the author’s argument on criminal liability.”

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers are expected to provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept

Ready for publication with minor or no revisions

Minor Revision

Small improvements required

Major Revision

Significant changes required

Reject

Not suitable for publication

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the editorial team if they identify potential ethical issues, including:

???? Plagiarism ???? Redundant Publication ???? Fabricated Data ⚖️ Undisclosed Conflicts ✍️ Authorship Concerns

Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript content for their own research or disclose any information related to the manuscript before publication.

Reviewer Resources & Training

Publication Ethics

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Learn More →

Reviewer Academy

Elsevier Reviewer Training Modules

Learn More →

Webinars & Training

COPE and Publisher Training Programs

Learn More →

Interested in Becoming a Reviewer?

PLICE welcomes qualified experts in public law, criminal law, and crime studies to join our reviewer database.

Final Notes

Reviewers may decline review invitations if the manuscript is outside their expertise, if they are unable to complete the review within the required timeframe, or if a conflict of interest exists. Timely, constructive, and ethical reviews are essential to uphold the scholarly integrity of PLICE.

For questions or to update your reviewer profile, please contact: editor@analysisdata.co.id

Thank you for your professional service to Advances in Public Law and Crime (PLICE).