Social and Legal Studios
ISSN 2617-4162
e-ISSN 2617-4170
Publisher: Lviv State University of Internal Affairs
Peer review of manuscripts submitted to Social and Legal Studios is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical standard of the journal, to select relevant and scientifically valuable materials, and to uphold the principles of academic integrity, objectivity and impartiality in the editorial process.
The purpose of expert evaluation is to ensure the careful selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication, to assess the scientific quality of the submitted material, and to verify its compliance with the journal’s scope, as well as with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All participants in the editorial process – editors, members of the Editorial Board and reviewers – are required to comply with the provisions of the “Publication Ethics” section and to avoid any circumstances that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation. The editorial policy of Social and Legal Studios, including the procedure for expert evaluation of manuscripts, is based on international principles of publication ethics and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal adheres to the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, academic integrity, transparency of editorial decisions, as well as the prevention, identification and management of conflicts of interest at all stages of the editorial process.
Social and Legal Studios pays particular attention to preventing, identifying and eliminating conflicts of interest at all stages of manuscript consideration. A potential conflict of interest is understood as any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic or other connection between authors, editors or reviewers that may influence, or create the impression of influencing, the impartiality of an editorial decision.
Social and Legal Studios follows a double-blind peer review procedure:
The anonymity of the parties involved in peer review is ensured by the editorial office by removing from the manuscript any information that may identify the author or the group of authors. Reviewers are also required not to attempt to establish the identity of the author and to inform the editorial office if such identity becomes known to them accidentally.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo an initial check for compliance with the requirements set out in the “Publication Terms” section. Only manuscripts that correspond to the journal’s subject area, have passed editorial screening, have been checked for compliance with copyright requirements, and have been prepared in accordance with the “Formatting Guidelines” are admitted to the peer review stage.
At this stage, the editorial office also pays attention to the existence of potential conflicts of interest, including the coincidence of the authors’ and potential reviewers’ institutional affiliations, joint publications, joint projects, subordination or other professional relationships that may call into question the independence of the expert evaluation.
The initial assessment of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. If the Editor-in-Chief has a potential or actual conflict of interest in relation to the submitted manuscript, in particular if he or she is the author or co-author of the article, or has family, professional, academic, employment-related or other connections with the authors, he or she does not participate in the consideration of that material.
In such cases, the initial assessment is carried out by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest. The same principle applies to all members of the Editorial Board: any person who has an interest in the outcome of the manuscript consideration is excluded from its evaluation and from decision-making.
If the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements, it is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns the article a registration code and removes from it any information about the author or authors.
The anonymised manuscript is sent to the member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field, as well as to two external reviewers. Ukrainian and international specialists who hold a Doctor of Sciences degree or another appropriate expert qualification and specialise in the field corresponding to the subject matter of the submitted article are involved in external peer review.
Reviewers are selected with due regard to their scientific competence, independence and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers may not be persons who work at the same institution as the author, participate with the author in joint research projects, have had joint publications with the author in recent years, are the author’s academic supervisors, subordinates, relatives, or persons connected with the author by other relationships that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation.
On behalf of the editorial office, the reviewer is sent a letter requesting an expert evaluation of the manuscript. The letter is accompanied by the anonymised text of the article and a standard review form. Before starting the review, the reviewer must confirm the absence of any conflict of interest. If such a conflict exists or is identified, the reviewer is obliged to decline the evaluation of the manuscript and inform the editorial office accordingly.
In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers assess:
Reviewers must conduct their evaluation objectively, appropriately and with proper justification. Personal criticism of the author is not permitted. All comments must relate to the content, structure, methodology, source base, conclusions or formatting of the manuscript.
Based on the results of expert evaluation, reviewers may recommend that the article be:
If reviewers recommend revision or rejection of the article, they must provide a written and reasoned explanation of the grounds for such a decision. The reviewers’ conclusions must be clear, well-founded and sufficient for the editorial decision to be made.
The usual period for consideration of a manuscript by independent experts is up to two weeks from the date of receipt of the material. Reviews bearing the reviewer’s handwritten or electronic signature are kept by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.
The decision of the Editorial Board is communicated to the author or authors. Articles requiring revision are sent to the authors together with the text of the review, without disclosure of the reviewers’ personal data.
The revised version of the manuscript may be sent for repeated peer review. Following repeated consideration, reviewers may recommend acceptance of the article, request further clarifications or recommend rejection. The fact that a manuscript has been revised does not guarantee its automatic acceptance for publication. If the changes made are insufficient or do not address the reviewers’ comments, the article may be rejected.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ conclusions, the recommendations of members of the Editorial Board, the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, scientific requirements and principles of publication ethics.
The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making concerning articles authored or co-authored by him or her, members of his or her family, close colleagues, employees of his or her academic unit, or materials related to projects, products, services or organisations in which he or she has a personal, professional or financial interest.
Such manuscripts undergo independent peer review without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief, his or her research group, or any other persons who may have a conflict of interest. The final decision on such articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another authorised member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.
If a conflict of interest is identified after the beginning of peer review or at a later stage of editorial consideration, the editorial office takes the necessary measures to ensure the impartiality of the procedure. Depending on the situation, the reviewer or editor may be replaced, the manuscript may be assigned to another responsible editor, or it may be sent for additional independent peer review.
The journal does not permit editorial decisions to be made by persons who have an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the relevant manuscript. All decisions are made solely on the basis of the scientific quality of the material, its relevance, novelty, reliability, correspondence to the journal’s subject area and compliance with the ethical standards of scientific publication.
The usual period for expert evaluation is 2-4 weeks.
The average time to the first editorial decision is 4-8 weeks.