Peer Review Process

Lex Harmonia: Journal of Legal maintains publication excellence through a double-blind peer review system. All research submissions follow a comprehensive evaluation process with these key elements:

  1. Lex Harmonia: Journal of Legal employs a dual-phase approach: Initially, the editorial staff assesses manuscripts for technical merit and suitability for the journal. Qualifying submissions then advance to an assigned editor who oversees the review and decision process.
  2. When submissions meet Lex Harmonia: Journal of Legal's criteria and scope, they're allocated to an appropriate Editor. This editor then identifies, and contacts qualified field experts to serve as reviewers. Since peer reviewing is voluntary work, response times may vary, though editors maintain regular communication with reviewers to ensure progress. During this period, submissions display an "Under Review" status.
  3. Alternatively, an Editor may conclude that a submission doesn't align with the journal's standards or focus, resulting in immediate rejection with possible suggestions for alternative publication venues.

Review Process for Submitted Papers:

Lex Harmonia: Journal of Legal editors make swift decisions to accept, decline, or request modifications based on reviewer feedback and editorial judgment. Editors may also commission additional reviews when needed, with authors receiving notification of such decisions. Editorial evaluation considers both content relevance and writing quality according to established journal standards. The double-blind system ensures mutual anonymity between reviewers and authors throughout the process.

The workflow includes these phases:

  1. Author manuscript submission
  2. Editorial team evaluation and selection
  3. Editor decision (immediate acceptance, rejection, or review assignment), including plagiarism screening via Turnitin
  4. Reviewer assessment phase
  5. Editor communication of outcome (acceptance, revision request, or rejection) based on reviewer input
  6. Author revision phase
  7. Final acceptance notification upon satisfactory revision
  8. Proofreading and publication stages

The review cycle operates in rounds, with steps 1-5 comprising the initial round. Editors and editorial boards carefully consider reviewer recommendations before reaching final decisions, which typically fall into these categories:

  1. Accepted without any changes.
  2. Accepted with minor revisions indicating that the manuscript is suitable for publication but requires some limited modifications to meet the necessary standards.
  3. Accepted with major revisions, implying that the manuscript needs substantial changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  4. Rejected, which usually occurs if the manuscript falls outside the journal's scope and aims, has significant technical or descriptive issues, or lacks clarity in presentation