Reviewer Guidelines

Trends in Intellectual Property Research employs a double-blind peer review system in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, ensuring unbiased and constructive evaluation. Reviewers are generally expected to submit their reports within two weeks. If additional time is required, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office.

Reviewers play a vital role in assessing the quality, originality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Feedback should be thorough, objective, and respectful, with the aim of assisting authors in improving their work and supporting the Editor-in-Chief in making well-informed decisions.

Review Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects:

1. Title and Abstract

  • Title: Is it concise, accurate, and reflective of the manuscript’s content and contribution (ideally within 20 words)?
  • Abstract: Does it clearly summarize the research problem, objectives, methodology (if relevant), key findings, and implications in a self-contained manner?

2. Introduction

  • Does the introduction establish the significance and originality of the topic?
  • Is sufficient background provided?
  • Is the research question or objective clearly articulated?
  • Does it identify a gap in existing literature that the study addresses?

3. Literature Review / Theoretical Framework

  • Is prior scholarship adequately reviewed and critically engaged?
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate novelty and depth?
  • Are gaps in the literature clearly identified and linked to the study’s purpose?
  • Is the argument logically structured and well-supported?

4. Methods (where applicable)

  • Is the chosen research approach (e.g., doctrinal, empirical, comparative) clearly explained and appropriate?
  • Are data sources, methods, and analytical techniques described in sufficient detail?
  • For empirical studies, are sampling methods, tools, and measurements properly outlined?
  • If new methods are introduced, are they sufficiently explained?

 5. Analysis / Discussion

  • Is the legal analysis coherent, rigorous, and supported by relevant authorities (cases, statutes, and scholarship)?
  • Are arguments clearly presented and logically organized?
  • For empirical work, are findings presented clearly without unnecessary repetition?
  • Does the discussion critically engage with results and existing literature?

6. Conclusion

  • Does it effectively address the research question or objectives?
  • Is it consistent with the analysis presented?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Does it highlight contributions and suggest directions for future research?

7. References

  • Are citations accurate, complete, and formatted in Chicago Author-Date style?
  • Are sources relevant and reasonably up to date?
  • Do in-text citations correspond with the reference list?

8. Overall Quality and Ethics

  • Originality: Is the work sufficiently original?
  • Clarity: Is the language clear, professional, and inclusive?
  • Structure: Does the manuscript follow a logical and coherent organization?
  • Ethics: Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or research integrity?

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and must not share or use the content for personal purposes.
  • Any potential conflicts of interest—such as professional or personal relationships with the authors—must be disclosed to the Editor immediately.

Recommendation Categories

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations and provide supporting comments:

  • Accept Submission – Suitable for publication without changes (rare at initial review)
  • Minor Revisions – Requires limited improvements
  • Major Revisions – Substantial changes needed; manuscript should be reconsidered after revision
  • Resubmit Elsewhere – More appropriate for another journal
  • Reject – Not suitable for publication due to significant limitations
  • Comments Only – No formal recommendation, but detailed feedback provided

Submission of Review

Reviewers should submit their reports through the journal’s online system. Reports should include:

  • Detailed, constructive comments for the authors
  • Optional confidential remarks for the Editor