Typing on a Computer


Call for Blogs

Wordict in Association with S&M Partners


Submission Guidelines 

  • The submission should deal with a relevant/topical issue concerning any area of Law. Articles on History/Political Science/Economics/Policy will also be accepted. However, some legal relevance of the piece is mandatory.

  • Only original work of the author(s) will be accepted. Submissions will be screened for plagiarism. Plagiarism > 15 % will be a ground for rejection.

  • Submissions must be emailed to wordict.press@gmail.com with the subject ‘SUBMISSION FOR WORDICT’.

  • The articles should be mailed to us in a word document and while formatting the document, the author(s) should keep the following things in mind:

    • Font size: 12 pt., Font style: Times New Roman and Line spacing: 1.5 lines.

    • The authorities and sources should be duly acknowledged and hyperlinks should be used for the same. If hyperlinks are not available, then footnotes (uniform style) can be used.

  • The body of the email must contain a short bio of the author(s) and the name of the institution that they are affiliated to. Submissions are welcomed from students/researchers/practitioners/faculty members.

  • The submission should preferably be between 1200-1500 words excluding footnotes. However, submissions of longer length can be published in parts with author’s consent.

  • The board would look into various factors like relevance to the theme of the blog, accuracy of facts, depth of analysis, coherence in argumentation and lastly, language and structure of the content.

  • Upon selection, author will be intimated of the same and will be required to send an image which should be representative of the submission piece.

  • Generally, the author(s) will be intimated about acceptance/rejection within 7 days of submission.

  • Co-authorship is allowed up to two authors.

  • Cross-posting is allowed with the permission of the editors.

Rolling Basis! No Submission Fee!


Editorial Policy


Peer Review Process


Blogs/Articles that are submitted to the Wordict are first assessed by the Student editorial board who decide whether or not it is suitable for peer review, in relation to the scope of the journal and the academic quality of the paper. If the paper is judged suitable for peer review, the Chief Student Editor sends it by e-mail to our Professional Chief Editor for a double-blind peer review. Reviewers remain anonymous for the author and the author’s name is removed from the manuscript under review.

We try to make the review process as quick as possible. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication on the Website.

Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the Managing editor then decides whether the article should be accepted as it is, revised or rejected. In case of revisions, a final decision on publication will be made after resubmission.

Editors’ and reviewers’ screening criteria:

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the Blog? Is the submission original, relevant, and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?

  • Structure and argument: Do the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the Article logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?

  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures, or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?

  • Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?

  • Language: Is the text well written? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.

Give Us Your Feedback!