International Journal of Forensic, Legal, and Health Sciences

Overview

Peer review is a structured and independent evaluation process in which subject experts critically assess submitted manuscripts before publication. It serves as a cornerstone of scholarly quality assurance, ensuring that published research demonstrates scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity. At IJFLHS, peer review not only verifies methodological robustness and analytical accuracy but also strengthens manuscript clarity and scholarly impact through constructive expert feedback. Reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the journal’s academic credibility and supporting the advancement of forensic, legal, and health sciences worldwide.

Our Double-Blind Peer Review System

IJFLHS follows a double-blind peer review model designed to maximise fairness and minimise bias. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the evaluation process. This ensures that manuscripts are judged exclusively on scientific merit, independent of author reputation, institutional affiliation, or geographic origin. The typical review period ranges from 3–5 weeks; however, technically complex submissions may require additional time. This process aligns with internationally accepted publishing standards and promotes objective scholarly assessment.

Peer Review Workflow Overview

The editorial evaluation proceeds through the following structured stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 days): The editorial office checks submissions for scope relevance, baseline quality, and formatting compliance. Approximately 30% of manuscripts may be returned or declined at this stage.
2. Reviewer Assignment (5–7 days): Qualified reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Typically, 3–4 reviewers are invited to secure at least two complete reports.
3. Peer Evaluation Phase (14–21 days): Reviewers conduct detailed critical appraisal using standardised evaluation criteria and submit structured reports with recommendations.
4. Decision Formulation (3–5 days): The handling editor synthesises reviewer feedback, resolves discrepancies, and determines the editorial decision.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive the editorial decision along with anonymised reviewer comments and, where applicable, detailed revision guidance.

The average duration from submission to first decision is approximately 4–6 weeks, although exceptionally strong or highly complex manuscripts may follow accelerated or extended timelines.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Guidelines

Pre-Review Considerations: Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should conduct a careful self-assessment of their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers must confirm that the manuscript falls within their professional competence and that no personal, institutional, or competitive relationships could compromise impartiality. They should also ensure adequate time availability, as a thorough review generally requires 4–6 hours of focused evaluation and should be completed within the journal’s standard 14-day review window. This preliminary diligence supports both the integrity and timeliness of the peer review process.

Review Execution Protocol: Once a review assignment is accepted, reviewers should follow a systematic evaluation approach. An initial full reading helps establish overall context, study design, and key findings. This should be followed by a detailed section-by-section analysis using the journal’s evaluation criteria. Strict confidentiality must be maintained at all times; manuscript content must not be shared or discussed with unauthorised individuals. Reviewer feedback should be constructive, specific, and professionally framed to help authors improve the scientific quality and clarity of their work. While scientific merit remains the primary focus, reviewers should also identify major issues affecting readability or presentation.

Ethical Obligations: Reviewers are entrusted with upholding high ethical standards. Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or other misconduct must be confidentially reported to the editor. Reviewers should verify the presence of required ethical approvals, informed consent statements, and regulatory compliance where applicable. Critiques must remain objective and focused on the manuscript content rather than the authors personally. Preservation of reviewer anonymity is mandatory within the double-blind framework. If any undisclosed conflict or prior familiarity becomes apparent during review, it must be promptly communicated to the editorial office.

Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation Framework

Scientific Quality Assessment: Reviewers should critically evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit across multiple dimensions. The originality and significance of the research must be considered to determine whether it meaningfully advances knowledge in forensic, legal, or health sciences. Methodological rigour should be assessed to confirm that the study design is appropriate, clearly described, and properly executed. Analytical soundness requires verification that statistical methods are suitable and correctly interpreted. Conclusions must be directly supported by the presented data without overstatement. Finally, reviewers should consider reproducibility by evaluating whether sufficient methodological detail is provided for independent verification.

Structural and Presentation Evaluation

Technical and Ethical Compliance: Reviewers must also verify technical accuracy and ethical completeness. Figures and tables should be clear, properly labelled, and necessary. Statistical reporting must include appropriate tests, correct p-values or confidence intervals, and effect sizes where relevant. Ethical documentation, including IRB approval, informed consent, and trial registration when applicable, must be present and valid. Terminology should remain consistent, and abbreviations must be defined at first use. Any supplementary materials should be relevant, well organised, and properly cited in the manuscript.

Standardised Rating System

IJFLHS uses a five-level rating scale to support consistent reviewer judgments:

Review Report Composition Guidelines

Required Report Components: A complete reviewer report should include: (1) a concise summary of the manuscript’s aims and findings; (2) clearly identified major concerns affecting validity or interpretation; (3) minor comments addressing clarity, formatting, or presentation; (4) confidential remarks to the editor where necessary; and (5) a clear publication recommendation to guide editorial decision-making.

Decision Recommendation Framework

• Accept: Manuscript satisfies publication standards
• Minor Revisions: Small corrections required
• Major Revisions: Substantial improvement needed with re-evaluation
• Reject with Resubmission: Major issues but potentially salvageable
• Reject: Not suitable due to serious flaws or scope mismatch

For reviewer assistance or procedural queries, please visit the contact page.

Last Updated: 19/02/2026