Guide for Reviewers

The Employee Relations Law Journal (ERLJ) values the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to conduct fair, objective, timely, and confidential evaluations of submitted manuscripts while adhering to the highest standards of publication ethics.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are requested to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly, without personal bias.

  • Assess the originality, significance, and scientific merit of the research.

  • Determine whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope.

  • Provide constructive, professional, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their work.

  • Make clear recommendations to assist the Editor in reaching an editorial decision.

  • Complete reviews within the assigned review period or promptly inform the Editorial Office if additional time is required.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with others without prior permission from the Editor.

  • Use unpublished information or research findings for personal or professional advantage.

  • Discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should immediately decline a review invitation if they have any conflict of interest, including but not limited to:

  • Financial interests

  • Institutional affiliations

  • Professional collaborations

  • Personal relationships with the authors

  • Any circumstance that may affect an impartial review

Review Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

  • Originality and novelty

  • Importance and contribution to the field

  • Clarity of the research objectives

  • Quality of literature review

  • Soundness of methodology

  • Accuracy of legal analysis or research methods

  • Validity of results and conclusions

  • Organization and readability

  • Quality of tables, figures, and references

  • Ethical compliance

  • Overall scientific and scholarly quality

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers should provide:

  • Comments for the Editor (confidential, if necessary)

  • Comments for the Authors containing clear, constructive, and respectful suggestions

  • Specific recommendations for improving the manuscript whenever possible

Comments should remain professional and should never contain offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate language.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should report to the Editor if they identify:

  • Plagiarism

  • Duplicate publication

  • Fabricated or falsified data

  • Ethical concerns involving human or animal research

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Copyright infringement

  • Any other form of research misconduct

Review Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Single-Blind Peer Review

ERLJ follows a Single-Blind Peer Review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Timeliness

Reviewers are encouraged to complete their evaluations promptly to ensure an efficient editorial process. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, the Editorial Office should be notified as soon as possible.

The Editorial Board sincerely appreciates the valuable time, expertise, and dedication of its reviewers, whose contributions are essential in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the Employee Relations Law Journal (ERLJ).