At Lectio Socialis, peer review safeguards the integrity, quality, and rigor of published research. All manuscripts undergo double-blind review, in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. Reviewers are chosen for their subject expertise and must be independent of the journal’s editors and the authors’ institutions. The process is as follows:

1. Initial editorial screening

On submission, the editorial team checks that the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets the formatting requirements. Submissions authored by the journal’s editors or editorial-board members are not considered for publication and are returned without review.

2. Scope and format check

Manuscripts that meet the basic requirements are assessed for thematic fit with the journal’s aims. This stage is normally completed within two weeks.

3. Preparation for double-blind review

All author-identifying information is removed before the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

4. Plagiarism screening

Each submission is screened for originality with intihal.net. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 30% are rejected without external review.

5. Language quality

At the editor’s discretion, manuscripts may be assessed for linguistic clarity and academic style; those with inadequate language may be declined before review.

6. Double-blind peer review

Manuscripts that pass the initial checks are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise, who may recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. The first review cycle typically takes about six weeks.

7. Reviewer consensus

Decisions follow the majority recommendation. If recommendations are split, or if the editor finds the reports insufficiently detailed, additional reviewers may be invited until a clear majority is reached.

8. Author revisions

Authors respond to reviewer comments within the agreed time — normally two weeks for minor and up to four weeks for major revisions — and submit a point-by-point response. Major revisions are returned to the reviewers who requested them.

9. Expanding the reviewer panel

Where recommendations diverge significantly or reports are insufficiently informative, the editor may add reviewers so that the decision reflects the informed majority of independent experts.

10. Final decision

The handling editor weighs all reviewer feedback before deciding; a manuscript must receive a favorable majority to be accepted.

11. Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copy-editing, layout, and proofreading, and authors approve the final PDF. Articles are then published online immediately — without waiting for the year-end compilation — with a registered DOI, making them instantly accessible to readers worldwide.