The meticulous review process at Lectio Socialis ensures the integrity and quality of published works while upholding the highest standards of academic rigor. Reviewers invited to evaluate submitted manuscripts must be independent of the editorial board and the authors' affiliations. 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. During the submission phase, a similarity report is automatically generated from intihal.net. 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 must respond to reviewers' comments and make any necessary revisions within a set timeframe—typically two weeks for minor revisions and up to four weeks for major revisions. Requests for extensions may be accommodated through communication with the editor. If the manuscript undergoes major revisions, it is sent back to the reviewers who recommended major revisions for a second evaluation.

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: Based on the reviewer recommendations, the editor assigned to the submitted manuscript makes the 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. 

11. Publication: An accepted manuscript will be sent for copy editing, layout editing, and proofreading before publication. Correspondence between the authors and editors will be required at this stage in order to improve the language and/or look of the article. After the production stage is completed, authors are required to check the PDF file of the final version before the article is published. The publisher will register a DOI for the article after publication, and the article is immediately accessible to the public.

A typical submission, reviewing, and production process is illustrated below for a clearer understanding: