Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by an editor to assess their alignment with the journal's focus and scope and to identify any significant methodological issues. If deemed suitable, the manuscript is forwarded to at least two anonymous reviewers under a single-blind review process. Reviewers' feedback is shared with the corresponding author for necessary revisions and responses. The recommended decision is then discussed in an editorial board meeting, after which the editor communicates the final decision to the corresponding author.

LexSociety Journal of Law and Social Politics employs a single-blind peer-review system. In this process, reviewers are aware of the authors' names and affiliations, but the feedback and reports provided to authors remain anonymous. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two anonymous reviewers. This traditional peer-review model is widely recognized and preferred by many reviewers, as it supports objective and impartial critique of the manuscript.

Submissions must be original and the independent work of the authors. Each new submission undergoes an initial assessment by one or more editors to determine whether it aligns with the scope and standards of LexSociety Journal of Law and Social Politics. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if they:

  • Lack sufficient applied science content.
  • Focus primarily on methodological development rather than practical application.
  • Contain significant flaws in design, methodology, or data quality.
  • Exceed the word limit or fail to adhere to formatting guidelines.
  • Are poorly written or unclear in presentation.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial assessment are assigned to a subject expert from the editorial team to manage the peer review process. All submissions undergo a thorough peer review, and authors can typically expect a decision or an explanation for any delays within one month of submission. If revisions are requested, the corresponding author is expected to submit the revised manuscript within two weeks. The final decision is made by the editor, taking into account the insights and feedback obtained through the peer review process. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure the integrity and objectivity of the review.

Types of Decisions: Decline, Resubmit, Revision, Accept

Decline
After peer review, if a manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication in LexSociety Journal of Law and Social Politics, it will be declined, and resubmission will not be possible.

Resubmit
If the submitted version of the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form but shows clear potential, the authors may be invited to resubmit their work as a new submission. This decision indicates that significant revisions are required, and concerns remain regarding the manuscript’s suitability until the editors are convinced it aligns with the journal’s scope and standards. Resubmitted manuscripts will be re-evaluated by the editors and potentially undergo further peer review.

Revision
A revision decision indicates that the manuscript requires modifications before a final decision can be made. Authors are expected to address all comments provided by referees and editors and submit the revised manuscript within two weeks of receiving the decision letter. A detailed, point-by-point response explaining how the comments have been addressed must accompany the revised version. Revisions may undergo additional rounds of peer review, and if the revised manuscript does not meet the editors' expectations, it may still be declined.

Final Accept
A manuscript is deemed acceptable for publication, provided minor conditions are met. These may include sub-editing changes or minor adjustments to ensure the paper adheres to the journal's standards. Once the final version is reviewed and approved by the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed, and the manuscript is forwarded to the publisher for publication.