•  
  •  
 

Policies

Guidelines for Authors

The duties and responsibilities of all authors are, including but not limited to, thus:

Authorship:

  • Authorship of the submitted manuscript should be based on the following criteria:
    1. Substantial intellectual contribution in either the ideation or conception of the submission;
    2. Contribution to drafting of the submission and making subsequent revisions;
    3. Ability to grant final approval of the version that has to be published;
  • The Journal encourages collaboration and thus, co-authorship. However, the manuscript submitted should accurately and clearly attribute authorship only to those who meet the criteria mentioned above.
  • All authors undertake that their submission does not infringe on the copyright or any other rights of any third person, nor does it contain anything defamatory, slanderous, libelous, and obscene or any other unlawful content.  All authors agree that they shall be solely responsible in case of any legal violations.
  • Contributors who do not meet all the authorship criteria mentioned-above should not be listed as authors. However, they should be acknowledged and their contributions should be specified.
  • It is the duty of the corresponding author to obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals. Without such written permission, the Journal shall not publish acknowledgments for that individual.
  • An author may request removal or addition of author(s) after submission, acceptance or publication. In such a situation, the author shall provide a detailed explanation for the change and a signed statement of agreement for such request.
  • In case of disputes regarding authorship, the Journal and its editors shall not be responsible for the determination of attributing authorship and shall not adjudicate such disputes.

Conduct of the Author:

  • The Journal has the right to exercise its discretion to refuse to publish a submission by an author, if that author(s) has engaged in misconduct.
  • It is the duty of the Journal editors to act if they suspect or know of any allegations of any misconduct or any misconduct committed by an author.
  • Misconduct shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
  • Violations of publication ethics policy of another journal;
  • Previous criminal convictions by a court of law in any jurisdiction;
  • Ongoing criminal proceedings in any jurisdiction;
  • Allegations of, or ongoing proceedings or convictions whether in a court of law or in any institution or organisation pertaining to, sexual harassment;
  • Ongoing disciplinary proceedings, in any institution or organisation, including those pertaining to ragging or bullying;
  • It shall be the duty of the author(s), to disclose any details pertaining to such misconduct to the Journal, at the earliest possible time.

Concurrent Submissions & Text Recycling: 

  • The manuscript or any variation of the manuscript submitted to the Journal shall not be simultaneously submitted elsewhere, nor shall it be submitted to the Journal if it has been accepted or submitted elsewhere.
  • If the submission made to the Journal or any variation of the submission, in whole or in part, has been published or accepted for publication elsewhere, whether in the same or different language, the author(s) shall, at the time of submission to the Journal or immediately after receiving acceptance of publication, whichever is earlier, make a disclosure to that effect to the Journal, providing all the details of the relevant material. The Journal may ask the author(s) for additional details pertaining to the relevant publication.

Originality & Plagiarism: 

  • Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and is unacceptable. By making a submission to the Journal, the author(s) undertakes that the manuscript is their original work, has not been plagiarized and does not contain anything that infringes upon copyright or any other rights of third parties. All submissions will be checked for plagiarism by the Editorial Board. Infringing, offensive or plagiarised submissions will be liable for rejection.
  • It is the responsibility of the author(s) to acknowledge their sources and provide appropriate references in the manner prescribed. Any information obtained through private means (such as from discussion or conversation with third parties), should not be used to include in the manuscript without explicit written permission from the concerned third party.

Conflicts of Interest: 

  • Author(s) shall disclose any potential conflict of interest that may exist, whether financial, institutional, and personal or any other, which might give the appearance of influence whether in the content of their manuscript or in the review process.
  • Potential conflicts of interest include, among others, any relationship with an Editor of the Journal, employment, grants, consultancies, representation in a dispute/case and paid expert testimony.
  • It is the responsibility of the author(s) to make such disclosures on conflicts of interest to the Journal at the earliest possible time.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works: 

  • If an author(s) discovers fundamental errors in their work published in the Journal, it is their duty to immediately notify the Journal of such errors and co-operate with the Journal in rectifying said errors.
  • If the editors come to know of such fundamental error(s) in the published work, they shall provide the author an opportunity to prove the correctness of the work. If this is not proved, it shall be the duty of the author to co-operate with the Journal in rectifying such errors.

The editorial board has the discretion to decide in what form and manner the error(s) shall be rectified.

{ top }

Formatting Guidelines

The authors should follow the formatting guideline given below.

TITLE 

[Times New Roman, 16 Points, Bold, All Caps, Centre Align]

Abstract Text (max. 300 words)

 [Times New Roman, 11 Points, 1" Spacing, Italics, Justify]

I. INTRODUCTION (HEADING LEVEL 1)

[Times New Roman, 13 Points, All Caps, Centre Align]

A. HEADING LEVEL 2

[Times New Roman, 12 Points, All Caps, Italics, Left Align]

1. Heading level 3

[Times New Roman, 12 Points, Left Align]

Text

[Times New Roman, 12 Points, Justify, 1.5” Spacing, 1” indent on the first line]

Quotes

[Times New Roman, 12 Points, Justify, 1” Spacing, 0.5” indents on both sides]

Footnotes 

[Times New Roman, 10 Points, Justify, 1” Spacing]

IJCLP uses only footnotes (and not endnotes) as a method of citation. Submissions must conform to the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities.

{ top }

Peer Review Policy

Every paper published in IJCLP is peer-reviewed by an expert in that particular field of law. The peer-review process ensures that the paper matches up to the highest standards of legal writing. Through this process, the peer reviewer also assesses the factual and legal consistency of the paper.

1. The Process

Depending upon the subject matter of the paper, it is sent for peer review to an expert in that particular field of law. The peer reviewer may recommend that the paper be accepted (without any changes), or that it be accepted only after incorporating major or minor changes to the paper, or they may recommend that the paper be rejected. The editors will communicate the peer reviewer’s decision and comments to the author. If the editors deem it suitable, the author will be given the chance to incorporate the changes suggested by the peer reviewer. The editors will determine if the author has satisfactorily incorporated the changes suggested by the peer reviewer, in the paper. Depending upon the editors’ discretion, there may be more than one round of edits at this stage. If the editors believe that the relevant changes have not been made to the paper, they may choose to reject it. However, if the editors believe that all the necessary changes have been incorporated, and are satisfied with the paper, they may recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in IJCLP. This final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the paper will be communicated to the authors by the editors.

2. Type of Peer Review

IJCLP follows a blind peer review system. This means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the peer reviewer, and the author would not be aware of the identity of the peer reviewer.

3. Queries Regarding Peer Reviewer’s Comments

IJCLP editors shall act as a liaison between the author and the peer reviewer. Therefore, if the author has any queries regarding the peer reviewer’s comments, they may inform the same to the editors, who shall communicate the queries to the peer reviewer, and shall get back to the author.—would have to see how we are going to frame it.

4. Number of Peer Reviewers

If both the editors recommend it, the paper is sent to one peer reviewer. However, there may be further rounds of peer reviews, by different peer reviewers, if the first peer reviewer suggests the same.

IJCLP solicits individuals who are well-versed and have years of experience, in a particular field of law, to peer review its papers. It maintains quality control by ensuring that only practitioners, academics, or policy experts in a particular field of law peer review a paper.

5. Conflict of Interest

Authors are requested to kindly disclose the names of those individuals with whom they have previously discussed the paper. These individuals will be barred from peer-reviewing the paper. Any failure or mischief on the part of authors in this regard will be dealt with strictly. While soliciting peer reviewers, IJCLP confirms that the peer reviewer has not previously engaged with the relevant paper. This is done keeping in mind the anonymity of the author.

6. Metrics of Review

The peer reviewers are recommended to follow the metrics mentioned below while reviewing the paper. Authors should note that the following is only an illustrative list.

  • Identification of issues
  • Depth of research
  • Analyses, interpretations, and conclusions
  • Clarity of argument
  • Originality and innovation
  • Contribution to the jurisprudence on the issue
  • Engagement with the existing literature
  • Appropriate and up-to-date references
  • Structure and organisation of the paper

The peer reviewer may recommend that the paper be accepted without any comments, or that it be accepted with major or minor changes, or that the paper be rejected.  Based on the editors’ discretion, the authors may be given the chance to incorporate the peer reviewer’s suggestions into their paper. This process may entail one or multiple rounds of reviews. If the editors believe that the paper is satisfactory and the peer reviewer’s comments have been incorporated, they may accept it for publication in IJCLP. However, after these rounds, if the editors feel that the paper is still unsuitable for the Journal, they may recommend that the paper be rejected at any point of review process.

7. Incorporation of Peer Reviewer’s Comments

It is recommended that authors adequately incorporate at least a substantial portion of the changes suggested by the peer reviewer. The editors may recommend that the paper be accepted for publication only if they believe that a substantial portion of the peer reviewer’s comments have been satisfactorily incorporated. The paper may be rejected if the editors believe that the author has not adequately engaged with the peer reviewer’s comments. If the author believes that any of the changes suggested by the peer reviewer are not to be incorporated, they are requested to kindly mention it and provide sufficient reasons for why the change need not be made. The final discretion regarding the adequacy of the changes made to the paper lies with the editors.

8. Timeline of Peer Review

We endeavour to get back to the authors with the peer reviewer’s comments within 1 month from the day it is sent to the peer reviewer. However, this 1-month timeline may get extended, in certain cases, due to delays by the peer reviewers. Additionally, this timeline may get further extended if there are subsequent rounds of review.

IJCLP will provide the authors with regular updates regarding the status of their paper. We shall also inform the authors regarding the peer reviewer’s comments as soon as we receive them. However, a final confirmation regarding the acceptance or rejection of the paper can be provided only after the peer reviewer’s comments have been adequately incorporated into the paper.

9. Peer Reviewer Feedback

Even if the peer reviewer recommends that a paper be rejected, they are requested to kindly provide feedback regarding the reasons for rejection and the shortcomings of the paper.

{ top }

Diversity and Inclusion Statement

IJCLP is unequivocally committed to the diversification of its membership and published scholarship. The journal is also dedicated to cultivating an inclusive and equitable environment for both members and authors.

IJCLP defines diversity as including, but not being limited to, distinctions in race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, first-generation college, graduate or law student status, socioeconomic status, and age. We perceive equity to mean treating all members and authors, regardless of their differences, equally and fair. Lastly, we view inclusion to mean including all members and authors, regardless of their distinct attributes, in the overall culture and structure of the journal at large.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not merely words, hashtags, soundbites, or trends. They are core values and guiding principles central to our foundation as a faculty-run publication. We readily recognize that around the world, diverse groups have historically faced oppression and various forms of discrimination for possessing unique characteristics that should be celebrated rather than condemned

Having a diverse journal is critical to our growth and important to us for many reasons. First, it allows our members to engage in a robust exchange of different ideas, perspectives, and worldviews. Second, it allows our members, many of whom may come from different backgrounds, to interact and form meaningful relationships that extend beyond their notable distinctions. Third, it increases the likelihood of the Editorial Board publishing novel scholarship that expands across various practice areas and also focuses on topics that are disproportionately impacting diverse persons. Lastly, it helps dispel stereotypes and preconceived notions about certain groups and their behaviors, ideologies, and experiences. As such, we will continue to keep diversity, equity, and inclusion at the forefront of our organization to make significant strides in all three areas.

{ top }