Our Review Process
JIRMI operates a rigorous double-blind peer review system built around speed, fairness, and author dignity. Every manuscript is reviewed by two independent experts. Every decision comes with reasons.
The Complete Review Journey
From the moment you click submit to the moment your DOI goes live — here is exactly what happens, and when.
The moment your manuscript is submitted through the portal, the system generates a unique reference number (e.g. JIRMI-2026-4821) and sends an automated acknowledgement to your registered email address. This happens within one hour of submission, 24 hours a day.
Your reference number is your point of contact for all future correspondence with the editorial team. Keep it safe.
- Reference number generated and emailed within 1 hour
- Submission recorded in the editorial management system
- Manuscript queued for initial editorial screening
Before your manuscript reaches reviewers, the editorial team conducts a thorough initial check. This is not peer review — it is a gatekeeping stage designed to protect both the author's time and the reviewers' capacity.
- Plagiarism check: Full iThenticate scan. Papers above 15% similarity are returned with the report attached
- Formatting compliance: Font, spacing, footnote style, anonymisation, word count all verified
- Scope alignment: Does the paper fall within JIRMI's stated subject areas?
- Basic quality bar: Is there a clear argument, proper citations, and an abstract?
- Papers returned at this stage receive a written explanation — not a form rejection
This is the heart of the JIRMI process. Your manuscript — with all identifying information removed — is assigned to two independent reviewers selected from our panel based on their subject expertise and the paper's jurisdiction and topic.
Reviewers assess papers on six criteria: originality, argument quality, doctrinal accuracy, citation quality, structure and clarity, and overall contribution to the field.
- Two reviewers per manuscript — at least one with practitioner or judicial experience where applicable
- Reviewers have 5 working days to complete their assessment
- Reviewer identity is never disclosed to the author at any stage
- Author identity is never disclosed to reviewers
- If reviewers disagree significantly, the Editor-in-Chief casts the deciding assessment
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the reviewer assessments and issues one of four decisions. Every decision is accompanied by the full reviewer comments (with reviewer names redacted) so the author understands exactly what was found and why.
We do not issue form rejections. If a paper is rejected, you will receive substantive feedback that can help you improve it for resubmission elsewhere.
If the decision is Accept with Minor or Major Revisions, the author must submit a revised manuscript along with a Response to Reviewers document — a point-by-point reply to each reviewer comment explaining changes made or providing reasons for not incorporating a suggestion.
- Minor revisions: Revised manuscript reviewed by the Editor only — no return to reviewers
- Major revisions: Revised manuscript returned to original reviewers for re-assessment
- Authors have 14 days for minor revisions and 21 days for major revisions
- Final acceptance letter issued once revisions are approved
Upon payment of the Article Processing Fee, your paper enters the final publication workflow. JIRMI's editorial team applies house formatting, the paper is assigned a CrossRef DOI, and it goes live in the current issue within three to five working days.
- House formatting applied; proofs shared with author for final approval
- DOI assigned via CrossRef — permanent and citable from day of publication
- Paper published on JIRMI.in and in the current volume/issue
- Digital publication certificate and final PDF emailed to all authors
- Paper submitted to Google Scholar and other indexing databases
The Four Editorial Decisions
Every manuscript receives one of four decisions. Every decision comes with the full reviewer comments. There are no unexplained rejections.
The paper meets JIRMI's standards without requiring substantive changes. Minor copy-editing may be applied during house formatting.
The paper is strong but requires small corrections — citation errors, structural tweaks, or clarifications. Revised manuscript reviewed by editor only, not returned to reviewers.
The paper shows promise but requires substantial reworking of the argument, structure, or research base. Revised manuscript returned to original reviewers for re-assessment.
The paper does not meet JIRMI's standards or falls outside our scope. Full reviewer comments are always provided. Rejected authors are encouraged to revise for submission elsewhere.
What "Double-Blind" Actually Means
Double-blind peer review is the gold standard in academic publishing. Here is exactly who knows what — and what is deliberately kept hidden.
In a double-blind system, neither the author nor the reviewers know each other's identities. This eliminates two forms of bias: authority bias (where a reviewer favours a paper because of who wrote it) and institutional bias (where a reviewer discriminates based on the author's affiliation or background).
At JIRMI, author anonymisation is enforced at submission — your manuscript must not contain your name, institutional affiliation, or self-referential citations that could identify you. The editorial team strips any remaining metadata before sending the file to reviewers.
Reviewer identities are never disclosed — not during review, not after publication, not upon request. This protects reviewers from pressure and ensures candour in their assessments.
Standards We Hold Ourselves To
JIRMI's review process is governed by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. The following commitments apply to every manuscript we receive.
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. The content of a submission may not be shared with, or discussed with, any third party outside the editorial process without the author's explicit written consent.
Reviewers who have a personal, professional, or institutional relationship with the author — or who have a competing interest in the subject matter — must declare this and recuse themselves. The editorial team identifies and flags potential conflicts before assignment.
Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript. No consideration is given to the author's gender, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, seniority, or political views. The blind review system is the structural guarantee of this.
Reviewers are expected to provide substantive, respectful, and constructive assessments. Reviews that are dismissive, unprofessional, or unhelpfully brief are returned to the reviewer for revision before being shared with the author.
Authors must not submit a paper that is under simultaneous review elsewhere. Any discovery of simultaneous submission or prior publication will result in immediate desk rejection or, if post-acceptance, retraction and a ban from future submissions.
If a factual error, citation inaccuracy, or authorship issue is discovered post-publication, JIRMI will publish a formal corrigendum or erratum. In serious cases of academic misconduct, papers may be retracted with a notice explaining the reason.
Appealing a Decision
We take editorial decisions seriously and stand by them. But we also believe authors deserve a fair hearing if they have substantive grounds for appeal.
Authors may appeal a rejection or major revision decision within 7 days of receiving the editorial decision email. Appeals must be submitted to editor@jirmi.in with the subject line: "Appeal — [Reference Number]".
Your appeal must include:
- → Your manuscript reference number
- → Specific grounds for appeal (not general disagreement)
- → Point-by-point response to the reviewer comments you are contesting
- → Any evidence of factual error in the review
Appeals based solely on disagreement with the reviewers' opinions will not be upheld. Appeal decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and are final.
We understand that waiting for a review decision is stressful. Our target is to issue a decision within 10 working days of submission. If you have not received a decision within this window, you may email submissions@jirmi.in quoting your reference number.
Please do not send multiple status queries. One query after the 10-day mark is appropriate. Our team will respond with a status update within 24 hours.
Delays occasionally occur when a reviewer is unavailable. We always attempt to find a replacement promptly. If a delay exceeds 14 working days, we will proactively inform you.