The Employee Relations Law Journal (Empl. Relat. Law J.) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and ethical peer-review process. The journal follows a single-blind peer-review model, in which the identity of the reviewer remains confidential while the identity of the author is disclosed to the reviewer.

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal. These guidelines outline the responsibilities of reviewers, the review process, and the standards expected from individuals who participate in peer review.

Single-Blind Peer Review

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process. Under this model, reviewers are provided with the identity and affiliation of the author(s), while the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of their identity and should not disclose their participation in the review process or discuss the manuscript with the authors or other individuals.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and scholarly assessment of submitted manuscripts. Their primary role is to assist the Editor in determining the academic quality and suitability of a manuscript for publication.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on factors including:

• Originality and significance of the contribution
• Relevance to the scope of the journal
• Clarity and organization of the manuscript
• Quality and rigor of research or legal analysis
• Adequacy and reliability of evidence and supporting arguments
• Appropriate use of references and citations
• Methodological or analytical soundness
• Ethical and research integrity considerations
• Overall contribution to the field of employment relations, labor law, or related disciplines

Reviewer recommendations should be supported by clear and constructive comments.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscripts received for review.
• Conduct reviews objectively and without personal, professional, ideological, or other inappropriate bias.
• Identify significant errors, unsupported claims, inconsistencies, or relevant omissions.
• Identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation, or other possible forms of publication misconduct when reasonably suspected.
• Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
• Decline the assignment if they believe they cannot provide an impartial assessment.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the Editorial Office if additional time is required.
• Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional benefit.
• Provide professional, respectful, and constructive feedback.
• Avoid recommending citations solely to increase their own citation counts or those of their associates.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or otherwise use manuscript content without authorization from the journal.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review. All communication concerning the review should take place through the Editorial Office.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts may include personal relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, financial interests, academic competition, or other relationships with the authors or subject matter.

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment and notify the Editorial Office.

Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers, academics, legal scholars, practitioners, and other qualified professionals with relevant subject expertise are welcome to express their interest in becoming reviewers for the Employee Relations Law Journal.

Individuals interested in joining the reviewer pool should provide relevant professional and academic information, including their name, institutional affiliation, areas of expertise, academic or professional qualifications, and relevant publication or research experience.

Reviewer appointments are made at the discretion of the Editorial Office based on subject expertise, academic or professional experience, research interests, and the journal's current reviewer requirements.

Guide for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are encouraged to follow the following procedure when evaluating a manuscript:

1. Before Accepting the Review

Review the manuscript title and abstract, where available, and determine whether the subject falls within your area of expertise. Consider whether you can provide an impartial assessment and complete the review within the required timeframe.

If you have a conflict of interest or lack sufficient expertise, decline the invitation and inform the Editorial Office.

2. General Assessment

Begin by considering the manuscript as a whole. Assess whether it addresses a meaningful issue, presents a coherent argument, and makes a useful contribution to the relevant field.

3. Detailed Assessment

Evaluate the manuscript's structure, arguments, evidence, methodology or legal analysis, references, interpretation of findings, and overall scholarly quality. Identify both strengths and areas requiring improvement.

4. Ethical and Integrity Considerations

Reviewers should remain alert to potential concerns relating to plagiarism, fabricated or falsified information, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

Any serious concern should be communicated confidentially to the Editor rather than raised directly with the authors in a manner that could compromise an investigation.

5. Reviewer Comments

Comments should be clear, specific, respectful, and constructive. Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the suitability of the manuscript and minor issues that can be corrected during revision.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Feedback should focus on the manuscript and its scholarly content.

6. Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the Editor based on their assessment. Possible recommendations may include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review.

Reviewer Anonymity

The identity of reviewers is kept confidential in accordance with the journal's single-blind peer-review policy. Reviewers should also ensure that their comments and communications do not unnecessarily reveal their identity.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal may acknowledge reviewers for their scholarly contribution where appropriate and with the reviewer's consent. Any recognition will be handled in a manner consistent with reviewer confidentiality and applicable journal policies.

Editorial Authority

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor and Editorial Board. Reviewer recommendations are an important part of the editorial decision-making process but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

The journal may seek additional reviews or make an independent editorial assessment where reviewer recommendations differ substantially or where further expertise is required.

Ethical Standards

Reviewers are expected to follow recognized principles of responsible peer review and publication ethics, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers should maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, provide objective assessments, and contribute to a fair and ethical scholarly review process.