Editorial and Peer Review Policy

VintageLegal Journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review System, ensuring complete anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the review process. The identity of the author is not disclosed to reviewers at any stage, and it is the responsibility of the author to ensure that the manuscript is fully anonymized before submission.

All identifying information, including author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, funding details, and any other metadata that may reveal the identity of the author(s), must be removed from the manuscript and any supplementary files. A separate title page must be submitted containing the manuscript title, author details, affiliations, and the contact details of the corresponding author. Authors are also required to avoid self-citations or references that may indirectly disclose their identity.

All peer reviewers are expected to adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process.

The review process follows a multi-stage editorial evaluation. Each submission is first assessed by the editorial team, including a Junior Editor, Senior Editor, and Editorial Board review. Based on these evaluations, manuscripts may either be rejected or forwarded for further consideration. If any stage of the editorial review results in rejection, the manuscript is not considered further.

Manuscripts that successfully clear the editorial review stages are then sent for double-blind peer review. Final publication decisions are made based on peer reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

If the manuscript is accepted after peer review, it is approved for publication. If revisions are suggested at any stage, the authors are informed through the same communication thread and are required to incorporate the necessary changes for final acceptance. Only upon satisfactory revision and approval is the manuscript published in the Journal.