Rules For Reviewers
As a reviewer for Lectio Socialis, you play an integral role in upholding the journal's commitment to scholarly excellence and ethical conduct. Adhering to the following guidelines ensures the quality, objectivity, and integrity of the peer review process:
Rule 1: Timely Commitment
Before accepting a review assignment, ensure you can fulfil the task within the stipulated timeframe. Late reviews not only hinder authors but also impact journal operations. Reflect on the reciprocity principle – just as you desire prompt reviews for your work, extend the same courtesy to fellow authors. Delays in review processes are counterproductive for everyone involved.
Rule 2: Address Conflict of Interest
Exercise utmost discretion to identify and mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. Whether anonymous, open, or double-blind, review assignments demand adherence to moral and ethical principles. Anonymous reviews should not shield scientific misconduct. If any inkling of conflict arises, consult the Editorial team before proceeding.
Rule 3: Constructive and Thoughtful Reviews
Craft reviews that you would find satisfactory as an author. Just as you appreciate well-informed critiques, offer detailed and logical feedback. The rationale for praise or criticism should be supported by concrete evidence. Your profile as a reviewer is a reflection of your expertise and ethical conduct, contributing to the journal's credibility.
Rule 4: Contribution to Manuscript Improvement
Acknowledge your role as an unacknowledged partner in the authoring process. Your constructive comments can significantly elevate a manuscript, potentially transforming a borderline paper into a highly cited contribution. Be aware of your impact on the paper's trajectory, even if it involves recommending rejection.
Rule 2: Address Conflict of Interest
Exercise utmost discretion to identify and mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. Whether anonymous, open, or double-blind, review assignments demand adherence to moral and ethical principles. Anonymous reviews should not shield scientific misconduct. If any inkling of conflict arises, consult the Editorial team before proceeding.
Rule 3: Constructive and Thoughtful Reviews
Craft reviews that you would find satisfactory as an author. Just as you appreciate well-informed critiques, offer detailed and logical feedback. The rationale for praise or criticism should be supported by concrete evidence. Your profile as a reviewer is a reflection of your expertise and ethical conduct, contributing to the journal's credibility.
Rule 4: Contribution to Manuscript Improvement
Acknowledge your role as an unacknowledged partner in the authoring process. Your constructive comments can significantly elevate a manuscript, potentially transforming a borderline paper into a highly cited contribution. Be aware of your impact on the paper's trajectory, even if it involves recommending rejection.
Rule 5: Value the Learning Experience
Participate in the peer review process with a spirit of learning and community service. While you may encounter diverse papers, select those that resonate with your research interests or offer opportunities for learning. Perspective from varied fields can enhance the review process and manuscript quality.
Participate in the peer review process with a spirit of learning and community service. While you may encounter diverse papers, select those that resonate with your research interests or offer opportunities for learning. Perspective from varied fields can enhance the review process and manuscript quality.
Rule 6: Personalized Reviewing Methodology
Adopt an approach that aligns with your reviewing style. Consider reading the manuscript in its entirety before diving into a comprehensive analysis. Familiarize yourself with the journal's guidelines and author instructions, particularly if the paper pertains to a specialized category. Your review should encompass both major aspects and finer details.
Rule 7: Invest Time Wisely
Allocate your valuable time to reviewing papers that merit thorough evaluation. In a publish-or-perish environment, discern between high-quality and subpar submissions. Be judicious when reviewing less compelling papers, indicating your limitations while encouraging authors constructively.
Rule 8: Uphold Anonymity Standards
Maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of the review process in adherence to the journal's policy. Strive to preserve anonymity, especially in close-knit scientific communities. Avoid sharing manuscripts or reviews without journal consent.
Rule 9: Clarity and Conciseness
Compose your review with clarity, brevity, and impartiality. Ensure that your insights are comprehensible to both Editors and authors. Provide a structured critique with specific points and recommendations. Be decisive in your assessment, and offer a clear recommendation for publication.
Rule 10: Effective Communication with Editors
Utilize the "Comments to Editors" section to share insights that remain confidential from authors. Offer perspectives and clarifications that bolster your review. Strengthen your decision-making rationale and communicate potential biases or personal perspectives. This discreet channel aids Editors in managing split decisions and enhancing manuscript evaluation.
By adhering to these guidelines, you contribute significantly to the integrity and excellence of Lectio Socialis' peer review process. Your dedication to ethical reviewing practices advances the journal's mission and benefits the broader academic community.
Adopt an approach that aligns with your reviewing style. Consider reading the manuscript in its entirety before diving into a comprehensive analysis. Familiarize yourself with the journal's guidelines and author instructions, particularly if the paper pertains to a specialized category. Your review should encompass both major aspects and finer details.
Rule 7: Invest Time Wisely
Allocate your valuable time to reviewing papers that merit thorough evaluation. In a publish-or-perish environment, discern between high-quality and subpar submissions. Be judicious when reviewing less compelling papers, indicating your limitations while encouraging authors constructively.
Rule 8: Uphold Anonymity Standards
Maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of the review process in adherence to the journal's policy. Strive to preserve anonymity, especially in close-knit scientific communities. Avoid sharing manuscripts or reviews without journal consent.
Rule 9: Clarity and Conciseness
Compose your review with clarity, brevity, and impartiality. Ensure that your insights are comprehensible to both Editors and authors. Provide a structured critique with specific points and recommendations. Be decisive in your assessment, and offer a clear recommendation for publication.
Rule 10: Effective Communication with Editors
Utilize the "Comments to Editors" section to share insights that remain confidential from authors. Offer perspectives and clarifications that bolster your review. Strengthen your decision-making rationale and communicate potential biases or personal perspectives. This discreet channel aids Editors in managing split decisions and enhancing manuscript evaluation.
By adhering to these guidelines, you contribute significantly to the integrity and excellence of Lectio Socialis' peer review process. Your dedication to ethical reviewing practices advances the journal's mission and benefits the broader academic community.
References
Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057.
Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): e12.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012.
Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057.
Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): e12.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012.
Lectio Socialis is a prestigious, international, and peer-reviewed journal that aims to provide a platform for scholars and researchers to share their work and ideas on policy-relevant topics related to social sciences. The journal welcomes high-quality articles from a wide range of disciplines, including economics, political science, public administration, business administration, international relations, urban planning, sociology, psychology, history, jurisprudence, and philosophy. The primary objective of Lectio Socialis is to maintain a vibrant, independent, and unbiased environment for scholars and researchers from different parts of the world to present their research, exchange ideas, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.
