Peer Review Process
The Trento Student Law Review wishes to thank all reviewers who generously offer their time and expertise. We are sincerely grateful for their contributions and support.
1. The Editor-in-Chief, the Vice Editor-in-Chief, or both conduct an initial pre-screening to ensure that the subject matter of the submission is consistent with the aims and scope of the Review. If a manuscript meets the Review’s basic editorial and quality requirements, an Editor with expertise in the relevant field may be invited to conduct a preliminary assessment and content check. Taken together, these evaluations determine whether the manuscript should be sent to an External Reviewer or rejected at this stage. If the submission is not considered suitable, or does not meet the Review’s current editorial needs – assessed on a case-by-case basis and in comparative perspective – the author is notified of the rejection.
2. Manuscripts that are clearly below the standards of the Review, outside its scope, or not submitted in the required form may be rejected without external review. If the submission satisfies the Review’s internal criteria of consistency, relevance, originality, and substantial and formal coherence, the author may receive a preliminary editorial offer to proceed with the publication process. This preliminary offer is expressly subject to the successful completion of the external double-blind peer review process, to any revisions that may be required, and to editorial scheduling.
3. If the author accepts the preliminary editorial offer, the manuscript is sent to one of our external reviewers. External reviewers are members of the national or international academic community and are selected on the basis of their expertise, academic standing, and experience by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Vice Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Managing Editors. Authors may be invited to recommend specific reviewers or to request the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process. The Review is not bound by such suggestions. All reviewers must be independent from the submission and are asked to disclose any competing interests.
4. The Trento Student Law Review operates a double-blind peer review process. This means that the reviewer remains anonymous to the author and the author’s identity is removed from the manuscript under review. The reviewer assesses the manuscript and recommends whether it should be rejected, accepted subject to minor or major revisions, or accepted without revisions.
Editors’ and reviewers’ assessment criteria include:
- Academic relevance
- Readability: is the article clearly written and easy to follow?
- Structure and reasoning: is the article well structured and logically argued?
- Quality of the language
- Clarity of the research question or problem addressed
- Consistency between the research question and the contents of the article
- Adequacy and proper use of sources
- Compliance with the Review’s length requirements
- Consistency with the Review’s editorial aims and scope
5. The external review period is expected to take approximately three to four weeks, although the Review seeks to complete the process as efficiently as possible. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive feedback, including where the manuscript is not ultimately considered suitable for publication.
6. On the basis of the reviewer’s recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief and the Vice Editor-in-Chief decide whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication, accepted subject to revisions, or rejected. Where revisions are required, a final decision on publication is made after resubmission and further editorial assessment.
7. Final acceptance for publication is communicated by the Editor-in-Chief. No manuscript is considered finally accepted for publication before the completion of the external peer review process and the subsequent editorial decision.
