The meticulous review process at Lectio Socialis ensures the integrity and quality of published works while upholding the highest standards of academic rigor. The following stages delineate the journey from manuscript submission to potential publication:

1- Initial Evaluation: When submitting a manuscript to Lectio Socialis, the editorial team will evaluate it to ensure that it aligns with the journal's scope and adheres to formatting guidelines. Please note that manuscripts authored by journal editors and editorial board members will not be considered for publication. If such a manuscript is submitted, it will be immediately returned without undergoing the review process.

2- Scope and Format Review: Submissions within the journal's scope undergo a comprehensive evaluation to verify their alignment with the journal's thematic focus. This preliminary assessment typically concludes within a maximum of two weeks.

3- Double-Blind Review Preparation: For an impartial review, personal identifiers of authors are removed from the manuscript before the double-blind peer review process.

4- Plagiarism Examination: Prior to the review, submitted manuscripts undergo a plagiarism assessment. Those with a similarity rate exceeding 30% are excluded from further review.

5- Language Proficiency: At the editor's discretion, manuscripts may be assessed for language proficiency. Submissions deemed inadequate in language quality may face rejection at this stage.

6- Peer Review: Submissions that successfully navigate the preparatory stages are dispatched to at least two independent reviewers. Each reviewer holds the prerogative to accept, reject, or recommend revisions—both major and minor—based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript. The initial review cycle typically spans approximately six weeks.

7- Reviewer Consensus:  Should two reviewers reject a manuscript, the review process terminates, and the submission is declined. Should the majority of reviewers deem a manuscript suitable for publication, it advances in the review process.

8- Author Revisions: Authors are obligated to address the reviewers' feedback and effectuate the necessary revisions within a stipulated timeframe, usually a week. Flexibility in extension may be granted upon request. The manuscript can be sent again for evaluation during the second round evaluation process to the reviewer who recommended major revision.

9- Third Reviewer: In instances where one reviewer rejects the manuscript and another either accepts it or recommends minor revisions, a third reviewer may be engaged to ensure a balanced evaluation. If a second reviewer requests significant revisions, the decision to involve a third reviewer rests with the editor.

10- Final Decision: Upon completion of the review process, manuscripts that have garnered favorable assessments proceed to the production phase, marking a significant stride toward potential publication.

A typical submission, reviewing, and production processes are illustrated below for a clearer understanding: