Editorial Process

Pre-check
After submission, this check is initially carried out by the managing editor to assess:

  • suitability of the manuscript to the journal;
  • qualification and background of authors;
  • reject obviously poor manuscripts.

The Academic Editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board Member in case of a conflict of interest, will be notified of the submission and invited to check and recommend reviewers.

Peer-review
The process is double-blind for Social and Legal Sciences. It means that the author does not know the identity of the Reviewer’s the reviewer does not know the identity of the author.
Every article is reviewed by two external reviewers. Reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of the reviewer can be made by the academic editor during pre-check.
Alternatively, new reviewers will be identified by web searches for related articles.
The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

  • they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors;
  • they hold a PhD;
  • they must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper.

Academic editors handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor; however, Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time. Reviewers are given two weeks to write their review. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. In both cases, extensions can be granted on request.

Editor Decision
When making an editorial decision, we expect that the academic editor checks the following:

  • the suitability of selected reviewers;
  • adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
  • overall scientific quality of the paper.

The editor can select from: accept, reject, ask author for revision, ask for an additional reviewer. Reviewers make recommendations, and Editors-in-Chief are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision, for the benefit of the authors.

Revision
In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring it to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author’s revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Academic Editor. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.

Production
Social and Legal Sciences carries out production on all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing and conversion to pdf. Language editing is carried out by authorized professionals.

The Role of an editor-in-chief
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process. This includes making final decisions on manuscripts, or approving scholars to whom the decision can be delegated.

The Role of an academic editor
An academic editor polishes an author’s work (all kind of papers) – correcting typographical errors and grammatical mistakes as well as content errors that hinder the flow of reading and might edit a collection of writing for Social and Legal Sciences.

The Role of a co-editor
A co-editor is responsible in conjunction with academic editors and for the content and production of Social and Legal Sciences.