Peer Review

The scholarly rigour and the contribution that a research publication makes to the development of legal scholarship serve as primary criteria for acceptance for publication. Accordingly, all contributions are subject to peer review, except for orationes and book reviews. A two-step process is followed.

Step 1 is an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure that:

  • the contribution  falls within the focus and scope of PELJ/PER;
  • the content has not potentially been plagiarised by subjecting it to a similarity-detecting process;
  • the contribution has not been published elsewhere;
  • the quality and clarity of the language is good;
  • the guidelines and referencing style have been complied with (see PELJ/PER Standard for Style and Citation); and
  • the contribution has an adequate level of scholarly quality.

At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may reject a contribution or refer it back to the author for revisions. Next, all potentially suitable contributions are assigned to an editor to commence with step 2, the external blind peer-review process. Again, the editors may reject the contribution or refer it back to the author for additional revisions. Finally, if a contribution is deemed suitable for review, two reviewers will be selected and invited to assess the scholarly quality of the contribution.

The review process is double-anonymous. Reviewers are given two weeks to decline or accept a review request and four weeks to complete the review. However, the editor may allow additional time at a reviewer’s request. The average period for author feedback is about four (4) months, but more extended periods have been experienced.

At least two reviewer reports are required to make a decision. For example, suppose the reviewers disagree on whether a contribution is publishable or differ considerably on the changes/additions. In that case, the editor may arbitrate the recommendations or send the contribution to a third reviewer. However, the editor makes the final decision to publish or not. The author is subsequently informed about the reviewer’s recommendations and, if necessary, requested to make the revisions as suggested by the reviewers. 

Authors are given 30 days to revise a contribution requiring minor revisions and 60 days to revise a contribution requiring significant modifications. Revised contributions must be submitted online with clear indications of the corrections made.

In some instances, a revised contribution has to be sent back to a reviewer for a re-evaluation, or a further review process has to be initiated. Finally, the editor makes the final decision regarding the publishability of the revised contribution.

Authors may appeal a decision in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.

Accepted contributions are uploaded onto the online journal system, where they enter the production queue to undergo copy-editing, language editing and layout editing. A contribution will not be published before an invoice has been generated for the processing fees and before the author and Editor-in-Chief have a final control check.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Articles form this journal can be submitted to institutional repositories, subject to the following conditions:

  1. Always upload the final version as published at
  2. Acknowledge the publisher.
  3. Cite the article as part of the metadata and 
    include the DOI as part of the citation to the article.

Publication Scheduling

With the exception of special editions, PELJ/PER operate under a continuous publication model from 2016 onwards.

Instead of using page numbers to cite a contribution within a year volume, a unique article identifier is used, namely the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) which is available on each contribution.

Journal Identifiers

eISSN: 1727-3781