Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to ICLAW must align with the conference scope. In the initial stage, the editorial team conducts a preliminary eligibility evaluation (pre-review), formatting compliance check, and similarity/plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that do not meet the initial standards or exceed the plagiarism tolerance threshold will be rejected prior to entering the review stage.

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are transferred to independent expert reviewers who are competent in their respective fields. To guarantee an objective and unbiased evaluation, ICLAW 2026 implements Double-Blind Review procedures. Authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous. Authors are required to upload manuscripts without including names, affiliations, or personal identity details.

Reviewers conduct an in-depth evaluation of methodology, originality, data validity, legal/economic arguments, and compliance with scientific writing conventions. Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following outcomes: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Upon completion of the evaluation process, reviewers submit a written evaluation report to the editor. These anonymous comments and feedback are subsequently forwarded to the author as a guide for manuscript revision.

Authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewer feedback and re-upload the revised version. Depending on the extent of the revision (Minor or Major), the revised manuscript may be re-examined by the original reviewer or evaluated directly by the editor.

The editor performs a final check on the revised manuscript to ensure all review comments have been properly addressed. The final acceptance decision (Final Acceptance) or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief. Accepted manuscripts will proceed to copyediting for publication in the conference proceedings.