-
Galterprofmkb
Global Academy of Law-Tech Education & Research
The journal’s editorial team is cognisant of the lack of diversity and representation of scholars from marginalized and vulnerable communities in the legal academia. It also acknowledges the undesirable consequences of such lack of diversity, namely the unconscious bias, on the integrity of the editorial process. Hence, the editorial team is committed to ensure that its editorial processes and outcomes do not deny academic/professional advancement opportunities to anyone on account of their structural disadvantages.
Hence, we strive for maximum transparency in how we approach selection opportunities. This Diversity and Inclusion Policy describes our efforts to actively mitigate the exercise of unconscious bias. This is intended to educate our staff, editors, authors and reviewers about how unconscious bias can be identified and how it can be overcome. All persons associated with the Journal, in the capacity of author, reviewer, and editor, are expected to acquaint themselves and adhere to the terms of this Policy.
The journal strives for greater transparency and diversity with regards to editors and board members. Consequently, the selection process for trainee editors provides for compensatory points on the basis of a multi-dimensional deprivation index. The year-round training and mentorship is aimed at providing these trainees from diverse backgrounds a level playing field in the competitive selection process for the editorial positions.
All editors are required to ensure that they are cognizant of the concerns for diversity while inviting practitioners and scholars to contribute to the journal. The editorial team regularly conducts internal briefings to raise staff awareness about unconscious bias. The team also periodically reviews the individual and team efforts to eliminate unconscious bias. Furthermore, the journal follows a rigorous blind peer review process where complete anonymity about the identity of the author is maintained.
The journal organizes a number of academic workshops and research symposiums every year considering the exclusionary socio-economic and gender barriers preventing the participation of scholars from marginalized backgrounds. The organizing teams take positive steps to reach out to presenters and speakers from marginalized backgrounds in order to prevent unconscious bias and enrich the academic engagements.
In view of the emerging evidence of under-representation of female and minority scholars in academic scholarship, the IJLAT is committed to ensure just and fair intellectual acknowledgement through citations, regardless of race, gender, class, professional standing, or other categorical attributes. To that end, our submission guidelines specifically mention the need for inclusive citational practices on part of the authors. We also require our editors and peer reviewers to be cognizant of the representativeness of citational practices manifested in the submissions.
The IJLAT Peer Review Policy provides for the positive duty of the editorial board to invite a representative cohort of peer reviewers or referees with due regard to gender and social diversity.
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.
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 round 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 IJLAT. 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.
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.
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..
IJLAT 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 in the paper.
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.