Editorial Mission

Founded in 2025, JJULR is dedicated to refining legal scholarship at the undergraduate level while advancing John Jay College’s institutional mission for justice and social inquiry. We publish annually and operate through two (2) complementary divisions: (1) The Journal, which features long-form articles that are academically and/or theoretically substantive and (2) The Forum, which highlights shorter commentaries and essays offering work on pressing legal and policy issues.

JJULR seeks to do the following:

• Publish original, well-researched, and persuasive legal and interdisciplinary writing that engages directly with informative, theoretical, and policy questions in law and its related disciplines.
• Provide undergraduate students at John Jay College with a professional editorial experience that strengthens legal research, writing, and critical analysis skills necessary for legal and academic careers.
• Connect scholarly, policy, and practitioner communities by publishing work that is both intellectually meaningful and accessible to general audiences.
• Encourage methodological pluralism by welcoming doctrinal analysis, empirical and sociolegal research, historical perspectives, and normative argumentation, provided each demonstrates rigor in using legal materials and institutions.
• Uphold the highest standards of editorial independence, integrity, and transparency in the review and publication process.

Editorial & Review Procedures

We employ review procedures tailored to the aims of each division while preserving fairness, transparency, and academic rigor throughout the editorial process.

I. Desk Review

• All submissions first undergo an initial desk review by the Managing Editor and all other relevant editors to verify that manuscripts fall within our scope, comply with formatting and submission requirements, and meet baseline standards of clarity and quality.
• Submissions that do not satisfy such criteria may be declined at this stage. Authors will receive a brief explanation for any desk rejection. Desk reviews typically are completed within two (2) weeks for Journal submissions and one (1) week for Forum submissions.

II. Anonymization & Blind Review

• The Journal | Double-Anonymized Peer Review (Preferred): Reviewers are not informed of the author’s identity, and authors are not informed of reviewer identities. Authors must submit: (1) a separate Title Page containing identifying information and (2) a fully anonymized manuscript for review (see Editorial Guidelines Doc.).
• The Forum | Editorial Review: Forum submissions generally undergo expedited review by Forum editors. In limited cases involving controversial or considerably unusual pieces, editors may solicit outside review. At their discretion, editors may also apply a double-anonymized process to Forum pieces where fairness or credibility so requires.

Anonymization Instructions: Authors must remove names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and self-identifying references. Self-citations should be replaced with neutral placeholders (e.g., “[Author, 20xx]”). A separate non-anonymized Title Page and anonymized manuscript must be submitted (see Editorial Guidelines Doc.).

III. Reviewers & Selection Process

• The Journal: Manuscripts that move beyond the desk review will typically be evaluated by two (2) independent reviewers, accompanies by an internal editorial review. Where possible, undergraduate editors will collaborate with faculty reviewers to develop training in academic evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and are required to disclose any conflicts of interest (see Editorial Guidelines Doc.).
• The Forum: Forum pieces are reviewed primarily by editorial staff. Where external review is found appropriate, one (1) outside reviewer and one (1) editorial assessment is accepted.

IV. Criteria for Review & Decision-Making

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria (see Editorial Guidelines Doc.):

• Originality and contribution to the field.
• Strength and clarity of argument.
• Engagement with primary sources (cases, statutes) and secondary literature.
• Methodological rigor (where applicable).
• Readability and organization.
• Citation accuracy and factual precision.

Based on these assessments, typical editorial outcomes include:

• Accept as submitted (rare).
• Accept with minor revisions (editorial or citation changes).
• Revise & resubmit (major revisions where a second round of review is likely).
• Reject.

Editorial decisions are disclosed to authors along with anonymized reviewer reports. Where appropriate, editors may provide additional guidance to assist authors in preparing revisions or resubmissions.

Reviewer Conduct & Confidentiality

JJULR relies on the integrity and professionalism of its reviewers to uphold the quality of all work submitted. Reviewers are expected to be affiliated to the following standards:

• Reviewers must immediately disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and excuse themselves where integrity may be compromised.
• All manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers may not share, discuss, or use the contents for personal, professionals, or competitive advantage.
• Reviews should be timely, evidence-based, and respectful, offering clear guidance to strengthen the manuscript while avoiding defamatory or unwarranted remarks.
• Reviewers should not make or retain public or private copies of submitted manuscripts beyond what is necessary for review. Materials should be deleted upon submission of review unless prior consent has been granted.

To support reviewers in this role, we may provide Guidance Materials designed to promote consistency and clarity in the review process (see Editorial Guidance Doc.).

Ethics

We conform to a clear set of ethical standards to preserve honesty and to maintain the trust of our authors, reviewers, and readers.

I. Plagiarism & Misconduct

All submissions are subject to plagiarism screening using accepted detection tools. Acts of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct will result in immediate rejection and may lead to notification of the author’s institution. If misconduct is discovered after publication, JJULR will investigate promptly and, where warranted, issue a correction, retraction, or expression of concern.

II. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We strictly prohibit the unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the drafting or editing of submissions. Any use of AI must be explicitly disclosed and pre-approved by the editorial board. Failure to disclose or obtain approval will be treated as a form of academic misconduct (see Submissions page). Editors utilize both available technological tools and manual checks to enforce this policy.

III. Corrections & Appeals

JJULR is committed to affirming the accuracy and reliability of its published content. In cases where substantive errors are discovered post-publication, the editorial board will issue corrections, retractions, or clarifications as appropriate, with full transparency regarding the rationale.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was reached in error may submit a written appeal within fourteen (14) days of notification. Appeals must demonstrate either: (1) the presence of new evidence, or (2) a significant factual or procedural error in the review process. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief in appointment with an independent panel. Repetitive or facetious appeals may be denied without further consideration.