Peer Review Process

JLSPA: Journal of Law, Social, and Public Affairs applies a selective editorial and peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. The process from submission to publication may take up to six months, depending on the complexity of the manuscript, availability of appropriate reviewers, and the authors’ responsiveness to editorial policies, reviewer comments, and revision requirements.

Manuscripts are selected based on their academic quality, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, originality, clarity of argument, methodological appropriateness, ethical compliance, and contribution to the development of knowledge in law, social sciences, political science, public administration, public policy, governance, and public affairs.

The journal provides reviewer comments and editorial feedback to authors as appropriate, regardless of the final publication decision. In certain cases, the journal may reject a manuscript while inviting the authors to resubmit a substantially improved version after addressing specific methodological, theoretical, analytical, or editorial concerns.

The manuscript review procedure is as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Within approximately one week after manuscript submission, a member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript by considering the following aspects:

  • conformity with the journal’s Author Guidelines and manuscript template;

  • relevance to the focus, scope, and readership of JLSPA: Journal of Law, Social, and Public Affairs;

  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • clarity and coherence of presentation;

  • appropriateness of the theoretical, conceptual, legal, or analytical framework;

  • methodological adequacy, where applicable;

  • quality and relevance of references and supporting sources; and

  • scientific and ethical acceptability.

At this stage, the Editorial Board may decide to:

  1. accept the manuscript for external peer review;

  2. return the manuscript to the author for preliminary revision; or

  3. reject the manuscript without external review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient academic quality, contain serious ethical concerns, or do not meet basic scholarly standards may be rejected at this stage.

If a manuscript is not recommended by one Editorial Board member and further consideration is considered appropriate, it may be assigned to another Editorial Board member for additional blind editorial assessment. If both members do not recommend the manuscript, it may be rejected by the Editorial Board. Where the initial editorial recommendations differ significantly, a third Editorial Board member may be consulted to support the final editorial decision.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to external reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject and methodological approach of the manuscript.

JLSPA: Journal of Law, Social, and Public Affairs applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic competence, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript topic. Where possible, reviewers should have no personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic conflict of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated.

Peer-review comments must be objective, constructive, respectful, impartial, and academically grounded. Reviewers must avoid aggressive language, personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or unnecessarily negative comments directed toward authors.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may evaluate:

  • originality and novelty;

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;

  • significance of the research problem;

  • theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • appropriateness of research methods;

  • validity and adequacy of data or sources;

  • accuracy and depth of legal analysis;

  • quality of social or political analysis;

  • public administration and public policy analysis;

  • governance and institutional analysis;

  • coherence of arguments;

  • interpretation of findings;

  • consistency between objectives, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusions;

  • adequacy and relevance of references;

  • ethical considerations; and

  • overall scholarly contribution.

For manuscripts based on legal research, reviewers may evaluate the appropriateness and rigor of statutory, conceptual, doctrinal, comparative, historical, case, jurisprudential, or socio-legal approaches, as applicable.

For manuscripts in the social sciences, political science, public administration, public policy, governance, and public affairs, reviewers may assess the suitability of qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, comparative, case-study, institutional, policy-analysis, or other relevant research approaches.

Reviewers are generally requested to complete and return their review reports within two weeks after accepting the review assignment.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

  1. Accepted;

  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions;

  3. Major Revisions Required; or

  4. Rejected.

Reviewer recommendations serve as important considerations for editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the final publication decision.

3. Author Revision

Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the corresponding author together with reviewer and/or editorial comments.

Authors are generally given up to four weeks to:

  • respond to reviewer comments;

  • revise the manuscript;

  • provide additional explanations or supporting evidence where necessary; and

  • submit the revised manuscript to the Editorial Board.

Authors must provide a clear Response to Reviewers explaining how each comment, suggestion, or recommendation has been addressed and, where appropriate, indicating the relevant changes made in the revised manuscript.

If authors disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation, they may provide a reasonable and academically supported explanation. Such disagreement does not automatically result in rejection, provided that the authors can justify their position using appropriate scholarly evidence or reasoning.

4. Editorial Decision after Revision

Manuscripts requiring minor revisions may be evaluated and approved directly by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor after the authors have satisfactorily addressed the requested revisions.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further evaluation.

Where necessary, manuscripts may undergo more than one revision and review cycle until the Editorial Board determines that the manuscript meets the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements.

The final decision on manuscript acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board, taking into consideration:

  • reviewer recommendations;

  • manuscript quality;

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • authors’ responses to reviewer comments;

  • adequacy of revisions;

  • ethical compliance; and

  • conformity with the journal’s policies and scope.

5. Galley Proof

Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, the journal informs the corresponding author that the article has entered the galley proof stage.

The corresponding author is expected to review and confirm the galley proof within 48 hours after receiving it.

At this stage, authors should only make corrections related to:

  • typographical errors;

  • author names and affiliations;

  • formatting;

  • references or citation inconsistencies;

  • minor factual inaccuracies; or

  • other minor production-related errors.

Substantial changes to the research data, methodology, analysis, arguments, findings, discussion, or conclusions are not normally permitted at the galley proof stage.

6. Copyediting and Layout Editing

All accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and layout editing prior to publication.

Copyediting may include improvements to:

  • clarity and readability;

  • grammar and language consistency;

  • terminology;

  • citation and reference consistency;

  • manuscript structure;

  • formatting; and

  • conformity with the journal’s publication style.

Layout editing ensures that the accepted manuscript conforms to the journal’s official article design, structure, typography, tables, figures, headings, metadata, and other publication elements.

Authors may be asked to review and approve relevant editorial or production corrections before final publication.

7. Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

Editorial decisions are based on the academic merit and relevance of the manuscript and must remain independent of commercial, institutional, personal, political, ideological, or other inappropriate influences.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the fairness or objectivity of the review process.

Reviewer reports, author information, unpublished manuscript content, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential and must not be disclosed or used for personal or professional advantage.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to replace a reviewer, request additional reviews, or conduct further editorial evaluation when necessary to maintain the integrity and fairness of the peer-review process.

8. Feedback on the Review Process

The Editorial Board welcomes constructive comments, suggestions, and feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders regarding the journal’s peer-review and editorial procedures.

Relevant feedback may be considered in periodic evaluations of the journal’s editorial policies and used to improve the quality, fairness, transparency, efficiency, and accountability of the publication process.

Through this peer-review process, JLSPA: Journal of Law, Social, and Public Affairs is committed to ensuring that published articles meet appropriate scholarly standards and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of law, social sciences, political science, public administration, public policy, governance, and public affairs.