JLEP invites article submissions by email, mail, and on Scholastica (with strong preference towards Scholastica or email). Authors should only submit articles that have not been previously published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Consistent with JLEP’s stylistic goals, submitted articles should be clear and concise. All submissions should be formatted with 1” margins, 12-point serif font for the body, and a 10-point serif font for the footnotes. JLEP gives strong preference to articles under 30 pages, double-spaced, including text, footnotes, and appendices. Please use footnotes rather than endnotes. Footnotes must conform to the latest edition of the Bluebook. Authors should be prepared to supply any cited sources upon request.

The Submissions Editor initially reviews submitted articles. Following the initial review, the Submissions Editor assigns members of article selection committee (ASC) to review the article based on timing guidelines established by the ASC and Submissions Editor. (For the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024, the ASC seeks to complete review in 8-10 days from submission.)

The ASC determines whether to accept, deny, or revise and resubmit based on the guidelines established by the Submissions Editor. Non-unanimous ASC determinations are subject to veto by EIC. For the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024, the ASC considers whether:

1. the paper makes a contribution to scholarship;

2. the article adequately engaged with the relevant scholarly literature;

3. the paper is professionally written, easy to read, and free from grammatical or spelling errors;

4. the citations adequately support the argument, are accurate, and are formatted in accordance with the latest edition of the Bluebook; and

5. the article fits within the scope of JLEP.

Any offers to publish at this stage are tentative pending peer review. JLEP may reject without peer review or following peer review if the article does not meet JLEP’s standards.

Accepted manuscripts are peer reviewed. Peer review seeks to confirm the validity of the arguments made. Through the process, submissions should become more accurate and robust, easier to read, and more relevant to the field.

The level of peer review depends on each article’s contents. Articles with heavy economic or statistical analyses are reviewed by individuals holding advanced degrees in the relevant field, often Ph.D.s or George Mason-affiliated Ph.D. candidates. Articles containing less comprehensive economic and statistical analyses are typically reviewed by law professors and/ or J.D.s, though reviewers holding advanced degrees in relevant fields may also complete this review. Meanwhile, articles written by JLEP’s candidate members are reviewed by journal members. Typically, peer review is completed by one independent reviewer based on the manuscript’s contents (“Traditional Peer Review”). For Traditional Peer Review, JLEP operates a double-blind review system where neither the author nor the reviewer aware of the other’s name or affiliation. Peer review may also be conducted by symposium or author roundtables.

The peer review process is not intended to lead to rejection of submissions, only to the strengthening of each article. However, submissions may be rejected or require additional edits following peer review if the peer reviewer finds that the article:

1. Does not meet the submission or review guidelines set by the ASC;

2. Lacks proper structure;

3. Lacks the necessary detail for readers to fully understand the authors’ analysis;

4. Lacks up-to-date references;

5. Contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported;

6. Lacks clear descriptions or explanations of hypotheses tested, experimental design, or sample characteristics and descriptive statistics as a weak study design or faulty statistical analysis;

7. Has poor language quality.

Based on the feedback from peer review, the ASC will make a final publication decision.

Articles are subject to edits by JLEP and from the peer review process. JLEP strives to publish articles as the author wrote them. However, following peer review or during the publication process, JLEP may propose edits. These edits often come from the pre-publication policy that JLEP calls “spading.” Spading consists of below-the-line footnote changes to ensure compliance with the Bluebook and accurate citations and pincites as well as minor above-the-line grammar or structural edits. The edits could also consist of more substantive edits or comments based on peer review. In any case, a JLEP editor will provide these updates along with a summary of changes or track-changes document to highlight any edits. All edits are meant to improve the quality of submissions.

JLEP expects spading edits to be accepted as they do not address the substance of the submissions, only the citations, structure, and grammar. JLEP recognizes that substantive feedback from peer review may alter the substance of a submissions and that those edits may not be incorporated. Articles subject to revisions or feedback from peer review should be returned addressing proposed edits, including reasoning for why any substantive changes were rejected. Revised versions of submissions that incorporate, address, or reject proposed changes from spading or peer review must be submitted within a reasonable timetable set by JLEP’s editors.