Review Policy

We provide a double blind peer review process under which all submissions made to the Jus Dicere will be initially assessed by the editorial team taking into account the requirements for the publication. The papers deemed suitable would then be sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. These reviewers will provide their analysis on the basis of which the Editor will make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor’s decision in this regard is final.

Double-blind review

Jus Dicere uses double-blind review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the editors, reviewers, and anyone handling the draft of your manuscript in the selection process. This is to ensure impartiality and adherence to the highest ethical considerations. To facilitate this, please include the following:

Blinded manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables and any acknowledgements) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors’ names or affiliations.

Revised Submissions

Upon perusal of the original submission, the ones with publishing potential would be referred to the author to include any suggestions recommended by the editors in the manuscript. Upon implementation of the revision you must provide us with an editable file of the entire article.

Considerations taken in the review process

Some general guidelines to be applicable in the same are:

  1. To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the ‘spell-check’ and ‘grammar-check’ functions of your word processor.
  2. Ensure a proper Introduction to the research: State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
  3. Proper use and referencing of material and methods: Ensure that you provide sufficient details to allow the work to be published by an independent researcher. Methods that are already published should be summarized, and indicated by a reference. If quoting directly from a previously published method, use quotation marks and also cite the source. Any modifications to existing methods should also be described.
  4. Result: Results should be clear and concise. These are a major determinant in the quality and viability of research and form a major consideration in the review process.
  5. Discussion: This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. Discussion means the process explanation on how the research was achieved. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
  6. Conclusions: The main conclusions of the research conducted may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section. These three form the major determining criteria in the review process.