Peer Review Process

LEX POLICY: Journal of Law, Public Policy and Justice maintains the standards of double-blind peer review while seeking to ensure a rigorous, fair, and efficient editorial process. All research articles submitted for publication in LEX POLICY undergo editorial screening and, where appropriate, a full peer-review process.

The key characteristics of the review process are as follows:

  1. LEX POLICY applies a two-stage evaluation process. Following an initial technical and administrative check, each submission is screened by the editorial team to assess its relevance to the journal's focus and scope, compliance with submission requirements, academic quality, and suitability for further evaluation. Manuscripts considered suitable will be assigned to an Editor who will manage the peer-review and editorial decision-making process.
  2. If the manuscript is considered suitable for peer review, the assigned Editor will identify and invite reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field. Since peer review constitutes a voluntary academic service, the duration of this stage may vary depending on reviewer availability. The Editor will follow up with invited reviewers when necessary to facilitate the review process. During this stage, the manuscript may appear in the system as "Under Review".
  3. Once the required reviewer reports have been received, the Editor will evaluate the reviewers' comments and recommendations together with the manuscript. Depending on the journal management system, the manuscript status may indicate that the required reviews have been completed.
  4. At any stage of the editorial screening or review process, the Editor may determine that a manuscript does not meet the journal's focus and scope, academic standards, ethical requirements, or publication criteria. In such cases, the manuscript may be rejected and the author will be notified of the editorial decision.

Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts

The Editors of LEX POLICY are responsible for determining whether submitted manuscripts should be accepted, revised, resubmitted, or rejected based on reviewers' evaluations and editorial considerations. Additional reviews may be requested when the Editor considers that further expert assessment is necessary.

Before entering the external peer-review stage, submitted manuscripts are evaluated by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, academic quality, originality, methodological appropriateness, compliance with the journal's author guidelines, and overall suitability for publication.

All manuscripts proceeding to external review are subject to double-blind peer review. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. This process is intended to support impartial, independent, and academically rigorous evaluation.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments concerning, among other aspects, the originality of the study, relevance of the research problem, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological appropriateness, quality of analysis, clarity of argumentation, contribution to scholarship and/or public policy, quality of references, and overall suitability for publication in LEX POLICY.

In summary, the peer-review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Manuscript Submission by the author through the journal's online submission system.
  2. Technical and Administrative Check by the editorial team to ensure that the submission complies with the journal's basic submission requirements.
  3. Editorial Screening to assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, academic quality, originality, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.
  4. Plagiarism Screening using Turnitin prior to further editorial processing.
  5. Editor Assignment for manuscripts considered suitable to proceed to peer review.
  6. Reviewer Selection and Invitation based on expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.
  7. Double-Blind Peer Review by appointed reviewers.
  8. Editorial Evaluation of the reviewers' reports and the manuscript.
  9. Editorial Decision, which may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission, or rejection.
  10. Author Revision, where applicable, based on reviewer comments and editorial recommendations.
  11. Assessment of the Revised Manuscript by the Editor and, where necessary, by the reviewers.
  12. Final Editorial Decision following assessment of the revised manuscript.
  13. Galley Proof and Production for accepted manuscripts.
  14. Publication in an issue of LEX POLICY.

Editorial Decisions

The Editor or Editorial Board considers the reviewers' recommendations together with editorial and academic considerations before reaching a decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, while the final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor.

The possible editorial decisions include:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is accepted in its current form and will proceed to the production and publication process.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication subject to relatively limited corrections or improvements. The author must complete the requested revisions within the period specified by the Editor.
  3. Major Revisions Required: The manuscript demonstrates potential for publication but requires substantial revision in response to reviewers' comments and/or editorial recommendations. The revised manuscript will be reassessed before a final decision is made.
  4. Resubmit: The manuscript requires substantial modification before it can be reconsidered. This decision constitutes a conditional rejection of the current version while allowing the authors to submit a substantially revised manuscript for another round of evaluation.
  5. Rejected: The manuscript is not accepted for publication and will not proceed further under the current submission process.

Revision and Re-Review

Authors who are requested to revise their manuscripts should address the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Editors. Where appropriate, authors may also be requested to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing an academic justification when a particular recommendation has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed directly by the Editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the issues identified during the previous review round. Additional reviewers may also be appointed when necessary.

A manuscript will proceed to publication only after the Editor is satisfied that the manuscript has adequately addressed the relevant academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements.