Manuscript Submission and Review Process in Constitutional Review Journal
All manuscripts submitted to the Constitutional Review Journal undergo a rigorous multi-stage evaluation process before they are considered for publication. The editorial workflow consists of the following sequential steps:
- Technical Review by the Managing Editor
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial technical assessment conducted by the Managing Editor. This stage involves verifying whether the manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines established by Constitutional Review Journal. The assessment includes adherence to the prescribed formatting and citation style, specifically the Chicago Manual of Style. Additionally, the manuscript is subjected to a plagiarism screening using Turnitin to ensure its originality and prevent any potential ethical violations. Manuscripts that fail to meet the fundamental technical requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to the next stage. - Manuscript Evaluation by the Section Editor
Following the technical review, manuscripts that align with the journal's Author Guidelines are forwarded to the Section Editor for further evaluation. The Section Editor is responsible for determining whether the submission warrants progression to the Double-Blind Peer Review process or should be declined at this stage. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope, thematic focus, or academic rigor may be rejected outright without undergoing peer review. - Double-Blind Peer Review by External Experts
Manuscripts that advance past the Section Editor’s evaluation are subjected to a Double-Blind Peer Review process. At least two external reviewers, who are experts in the relevant field, are assigned to assess the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, originality, coherence, and overall quality. The identities of both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout this process to maintain an unbiased and objective evaluation. The reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations, which serve as the basis for the editorial decision. - Final Editorial Decision
Upon receiving the reviewers' reports, the Managing Editor, in consultation with the editorial board, makes a final determination regarding the manuscript’s publication status. The possible editorial decisions include: - Accepted: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication in its current form without requiring any modifications.
- Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conditionally accepted, provided the author incorporates minor revisions as suggested by the reviewers within a specified timeframe.
- Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript is provisionally accepted; however, the author must implement substantial revisions in accordance with the reviewers’ and/or editors’ recommendations before it can be approved for publication.
- Resubmission Required (Conditional Rejection): The manuscript requires extensive revisions before it can be reconsidered for peer review. The author is encouraged to revise the manuscript thoroughly and resubmit it as a new submission.
- Rejected (Outright Rejection): The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic and editorial standards and is not considered for publication, even if revisions are made.
This multi-tiered review process ensures that all published articles meet the highest standards of scholarly excellence, contributing to the advancement of constitutional law discourse.
