I. Types of Submissions accepted by the NLIU Law Review:
Manuscripts on any topic of contemporary legal relevance meeting the below-mentioned criteria:
Articles: 4,000-10,000 words
Case notes: 2,000-5,000 words
Legislative Comments: 1,000-3,000 words
Book reviews: 1,000-3,000 words
The word limit is exclusive of the abstract and the footnotes.
II. General Submission Guidelines:
Manuscripts submitted to the journal must not be co-authored by more than two persons. Authors are permitted to send only one submission per author or a team of co-authors.
Authors shall be informed of the status of their manuscripts after every stage of review. Editorial decisions shall be based solely on review of the final manuscripts, and no requests for expedited review shall be entertained by the Board.
Manuscripts not in conformity with these guidelines may be rejected at the sole discretion of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board reserves the right to send the manuscripts back to the authors for any modification(s) at any stage, in the event of non-conformity with any of the submission guidelines.
The Editorial Board may, in its absolute discretion, waive any of the above rules or amend the process. In case of any dispute or ambiguity, the decision of the Editorial Board shall be final and binding.
III. Citation Standards:
Citations must strictly conform to the standards laid down in the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (4th ed., 2012).
Submissions must use only footnotes as a form of citation.
Speaking/substantive footnotes are highly discouraged.
SCC citations for cases must be preferred wherever available.
IV. Style Guidelines:
Title [Times New Roman, 14 points, 1.5 line spacing, Bold, All Caps, Centre Aligned]
Abstract [Times New Roman, 12 points, 1.15 line spacing, Italics, Justified, 2 cm indent on both sides]
Heading Level 1 [Times New Roman, 14 points, 1.5 line spacing, Bold, Capitalize each word and Small Caps, Centre Aligned] Numbering should be: I, II, III, …
Heading Level 2 [Times New Roman, 12 points, 1.5 line spacing, Italics, Sentence case, Centre Aligned] Numbering should be: A, B, C, …
Heading Level 3 [Times New Roman, 12 points, 1.5 line spacing, Italics and Underlined, Sentence case, Left Aligned] Numbering should be: a), b), c), …
Heading Level 4 [Times New Roman, 12 points, 1.5 line spacing, Italics, Sentence case, Left Aligned] Numbering should be: i., ii, iii, …
Main Body [Times New Roman, 12 points, 1.15 line spacing, Justified, 1-inch margins on all sides]
Footnotes [Times New Roman, 10 points, 1.0 line spacing, Justified]
Acronyms and short forms on first instance should be spelled out in parentheses. These acronyms or short forms should be followed at all further instances in the manuscript.
Names of cases, publications, books, emphasized words, and uncommon foreign words should be italicized.
Numbers should be written in words, and percentage should be denoted by ‘%’ symbol.
V. Parameters for Evaluation:
A. Technical Review
Submissions made to the NLIU Law Review must be original and devoid of any plagiarized content. Plagiarism check is the first level of scrutiny that every manuscript shall be subjected to and it shall be conducted in two stages. The Editorial Board reserves the sole right to reject a manuscript, without review, if any instance of plagiarism is detected.
A manuscript having no footnotes shall be rejected at Stage I of the Plagiarism Check as it will not meet the minimum criteria of the Law Review.
Paraphrasing as well as verbatim usage of content without appropriate citation of authorities shall qualify as plagiarism.
Any instance of plagiarism in the abstract or conclusion of the manuscript is a ground for immediate disqualification of the manuscript.
Secondary plagiarism (plagiarism of the sources relied upon) is a ground for immediate disqualification of the manuscript.
B. Content Review:
Manuscripts which are not rejected at the Technical Review stage undergo Content Review. The Content Review is conducted in two stages wherein the manuscripts which are fit for publication as is, or do not require significant changes are shortlisted for Peer Review. The manuscripts are evaluated in Content Review on the following five parameters:
1. Grammar and Language
The language of the manuscript must be crisp and concise. A direct statement or argument would be preferred over an indirect one and minimum usage of passive voice is recommended. Author(s) must be familiar with the usage of a term used in the manuscript. The author(s) may be marked down for unnecessary repetition, long- winded sentences and irrelevant rhetoric.
2. Structure and Logical Coherence
The manuscript must be logically sound and appropriate for the objective it seeks to achieve. Author(s) may be marked down for arguments based on incorrect premises or presumptions, the lack of a clear structure or the lack of a proper logical flow.
3. Contribution to Existing Literature
If the topic of the manuscript is one which has been written about extensively in the past, the author(s) must consider what the contribution of the manuscript to the discussion is. Merely quoting and/or summarizing precedents would be inadequate. On the other hand, writing in a more innovative manner and providing a novel explanation/interpretation of a concept would be appreciated.
4. Contemporary Relevance
Manuscripts are expected to include recent developments on the topic. A manuscript is considered to possess contemporary relevance when it deals with trending societal issues and legal issues that have not been given the attention they deserve. The topic may also be one that has faded from public memory but has re-emerged for some reason. The relevance of the particular topic should be highlighted by the author(s) in the introduction.
5. Referencing and Research
The manuscript must reflect an in-depth, and not just superficial research. The author needs to be aware of what citation is required in the circumstances, when to cite (and when not to cite) and the relevance of that citation.
