About the Journal

Kamkus Law Journal (ISSN 2582- 1156) indexed in UGC-CARE, provides its readers with novelties in legal academia. Kamkus Law Journal is an academic-led, bilingual, blind peer-reviewed and generalist journal. The journal is interdisciplinary in nature and seeks to explore insights from economics, political science, philosophy, anthropology, and other disciplines. These varied perspectives on global issues will facilitate a more meaningful contextualization of law and legal change in a globalized world. The peer-reviewed issues include Reviews, Original Research Articles, Case Reports, Short Communications, and Letters.

The Kamkus Law Journal is the brain child of visionary academicians who share mutual passion and belonging towards the pursuit of academic advancement through structured, innovative, researched and analytical flow of ideas pertaining to law and contemporary developments.

People

Patron

Kusumakar Sukul

Editor

Prof (Dr.) Anurag Deep, Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi

Associate Editor

Vijay K. Tyagi

Assistant Editor

Ashish Kumar
Satyarth Kuhad

Editorial Board

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi
Dr. Seema Singh
Tabassum Baig
Neetu Mankotia
Ratnakar Dutta
Shri Shailendra Nath
Shruti Jain

Advisory Committee

Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Sinha, Vice-Chancellor, Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
Prof. (Dr.) Vandana, Professor, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Prof. (Dr.) B.C. Nirmal, Former Vice-Chancellor, NUSRL Ranchi
Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

Editorial Policy

Publication Frequency

The Journal currently publishes two issues per year.

Reviewers’ Guidelines

The Reviewers must summarize the research questions addressed by the manuscript and provide some conceptual context for the editorial board which would help them to understand the content of the article.
The Reviewers are supposed to address the following questions while reviewing a manuscript:

a. Are there any research questions addressed in the manuscript and are they relevant and important?
b. Does the article present new insights or perspectives on the legal issue(s) discussed/addressed?
c. What is the significance of the article's findings or arguments to the field of law?
d. Is the legal analysis thorough and well-supported by relevant legal principles, statutes, case law, and other sources?
e. Is the article clearly written, well-structured, comprehensive and logically coherent?
f. How well does the article situate its arguments within the broader legal framework and existing literature?
g. Does the article critically engage with legal issues, theories, and debates?
h. Are the legal sources (case law, statutes, regulations) cited authoritative and relevant to the arguments presented?
Comments to the Authors

a. Divide your comments and suggestions between major (essential to address for acceptance) and minor (non-essential or cosmetic and easily addressed) suggestions.
b. Provide comments in the manuscript and support your comments with appropriate references from the literature, e.g., relevant prior work by others or conflicting studies. Avoid giving blank and vague statements, e.g., “the article is not comprehensive”. Provide specific examples and clear reasoning for your comments. For instance, if you believe the article is not comprehensive, explain which aspects or sections are lacking and suggest areas for improvement in the manuscript.
c. Note whether the manuscript/article complies withsubmission guidelines of the Journal.
d. Avoid making a recommendation concerning acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
e. While making comments to the authors the reviewers should not provide any information that could indirectly reveal their identity to the Authors. Anonymity helps ensure that the review process is impartial and that the feedback provided is based solely on the content and quality of the manuscript, without any bias.
f. Maintain a respectful and professional tone in your feedback. Constructive and polite language encourages authors to take your feedback positively. Avoid overly critical or dismissive language.
Comments to the Editors

a. Give your reasoning for your recommendation (acceptance, revision and re-review, rejection)
b. Note whether weaknesses/shortcomings are serious (i.e., cannot be corrected and preclude publication) or addressable, and, if addressable, provide suggestions for improvement.
c. If you lack expertise in an area addressed by the manuscript allotted for review, convey this to the editor so the editor can invite reviewers with complementary expertise as needed for apposite review.
d. Your comments to the editor should be consistent with your comments to the authors. The authors should not get a more favourable impression of your assessment from the comments they receive than the editor does after reading your confidential comments.
e. Mention any suspected ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplicate submission or publication) to the editor.

Article Publication Charges

There are no charges for publication.

Archiving Policy

Open Access Policy

Index and Accreditation Information

Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Retraction, Withdrawal and Correction

Editorial Process

Pre-Review

The Pre-Review is done at two levels. The levels of review are as follows –

Desk Review – The editorial team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its general appropriateness and suitability for peer review. This includes checking if the manuscript meets the journal’s scope, submission guidelines and policy and basic quality standards.
Screening for Plagiarism – The manuscript submitted to the Journal for consideration will be subjected to a plagiarism test using a Plagiarism Detection Tool to ensure that the content is not copied or plagiarised. It guarantees that the work is authentic and adheres to ethical publishing norms.

Screening for Plagiarism

Desk Review

Peer Review

The manuscript is sent to experts in the field (peer reviewers) who evaluate its quality, originality, relevance, significance, logical coherence, contextualization, structure, etc. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. Peer review helps maintain the scholarly integrity and ensures the publication of high-quality research.

Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible.

Reviewer’s Decision

Based on the peer reviewers’ assessments, a decision is made by the editorial board regarding the manuscript. Reviewers typically recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. This decision is crucial for guiding authors in improving their work and for editorial board.

Revision

Authors are expected to revise their manuscript based on the feedback and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers and editorial board. This stage may involve addressing comments on clarity, analysis, and citations.

Final Decision

The editorial board makes the final decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication. This decision considers the reviewers’ reports, revisions made by the authors, and the overall fit with the journal’s standards and objectives.

Editorial board will consider the reports and comments by the peer-reviewers when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Proofreading

The manuscript undergoes a final check for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting errors. This ensures that the manuscript is accurate and ready for publication.

At this stage, authors are expected to be available to make changes as and when requested by the editorial board.

Competing Interest

Authors are required to disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that may influence their work or could be perceived as influencing their work. This disclosure ensures transparency and helps maintain the integrity of the publication process.

Publication Confirmation

After all revisions and checks are completed satisfactorily, authorsmust confirm their intention to publish the manuscript in the journal. The same confirmation will be provided by the editorial board also. This step is crucial for finalizing the publication process.

Copyright Notice

Authors typically transfer copyright to the journal publisher or grant a license to publish their work. A copyright notice informs readers about the ownership and usage rights of the published content.