The Employee Relations Law Journal (Empl. Relat. Law J.) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of published manuscripts. The journal follows recognized principles of responsible peer review and takes guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) where applicable.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office to determine whether they fall within the scope of the journal and meet the basic requirements for scholarly quality, originality, ethical compliance, and manuscript preparation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, submission requirements, or basic academic standards may be declined at the initial editorial stage without being sent for external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The Employee Relations Law Journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Manuscripts are provided to independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Authors are not informed of the identities of reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with identifying information about the authors. Reviewers who suspect the identity of an author are expected to notify the journal if this creates a potential conflict of interest.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their academic or professional expertise, subject knowledge, and ability to provide an objective and independent assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and should decline an assignment where such a conflict may compromise the impartiality of their review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and constructively, taking into consideration factors such as:

• Originality and significance of the work
• Relevance to the journal's scope
• Clarity and coherence of the manuscript
• Quality and rigor of the methodology or legal analysis
• Accuracy and adequacy of supporting evidence
• Appropriate use and presentation of references
• Ethical and research integrity considerations
• Overall contribution to the relevant field

Reviewer comments should be professional, constructive, and supported by appropriate reasoning.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should not discuss manuscripts with others or involve another individual in the review without prior permission from the journal.

Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the Editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, and compliance with journal policies. Possible editorial decisions may include:

• Accept
• Accept subject to minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit
• Reject

The Editor retains ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions and is not obligated to follow a particular reviewer recommendation.

Revision and Re-Review

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to reviewer comments and provide a clear explanation of changes made to the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Ethical Standards

The journal expects all participants in the peer-review process to maintain high standards of integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, and professional conduct. The journal follows relevant COPE ethical guidance for peer reviewers and the applicable ICMJE recommendations concerning confidentiality, reviewer responsibilities, conflicts of interest, timeliness, and editorial integrity.

The journal may take appropriate action where concerns arise regarding reviewer misconduct, conflicts of interest, confidentiality breaches, peer-review manipulation, plagiarism, or other forms of publication misconduct.