At Lectio Socialis, the peer review process safeguards the integrity, quality, and scholarly rigor of published research. All manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review system in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. Reviewers are selected for their subject expertise and must be independent from both the journal’s editors and the authors’ institutional affiliations.
The process proceeds as follows:
1- Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an editorial check to ensure they fit the journal’s scope and meet formatting requirements. Submissions authored by the journal’s editors are not considered for publication and will be returned without review.
2- Scope and Format Check
Submissions that meet basic requirements are reviewed to confirm thematic alignment with the journal’s aims. This preliminary stage is normally completed within two weeks.
3- Preparation for Double-Blind Review
To ensure impartiality, all author-identifying information is removed from the manuscript before being sent to reviewers.
4- Plagiarism Screening
Each submission is checked for originality using intihal.net during the submission phase. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 30% are rejected without external review.
5- Language Quality Assessment
At the editor’s discretion, manuscripts may be reviewed for linguistic clarity and academic style. Submissions with inadequate language quality may be declined before entering peer review.
6- Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts passing the initial checks are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers provide detailed, evidence-based assessments and may recommend:
- Acceptance
- Minor revisions
- Major revisions
- Rejection
The first review cycle typically lasts around six weeks.
7- Reviewer Consensus
Decisions are based on the majority opinion of the reviewer panel. If the initial reviewers’ recommendations are unanimous—whether for acceptance, revision, or rejection—the process proceeds accordingly. If recommendations are split, or if the editor determines that reviewer reports lack sufficient depth or evaluative detail, additional reviewers may be invited until a clear and well-substantiated majority consensus is reached.
8- Author Revisions
Authors are expected to respond comprehensively to reviewer comments within the specified timeframe—typically two weeks for minor revisions and up to four weeks for major revisions. Major revisions are sent back to the reviewers who requested them for re-assessment.
9- Expanding the Reviewer Panel
When reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, or when reports are deemed insufficiently informative, the editor may expand the reviewer panel to ensure that the final decision reflects the informed majority of independent expert assessments.
10- Final Decision
The handling editor considers all reviewer feedback before making the final decision. Manuscripts must receive a favorable majority of reviewer recommendations to be accepted.
11- Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading. Authors work with the editorial team to refine language and presentation, and must approve the final PDF before publication. Once finalized, articles are published online immediately—without waiting for the year-end issue compilation—and receive a DOI, making them instantly accessible to readers worldwide.
A typical submission, reviewing, and production process is illustrated below for a clearer understanding:
Lectio Socialis remains steadfast in its commitment to scholarly excellence, ensuring that each manuscript undergoes a thorough and equitable evaluation process that aligns with the highest academic standards. Through this meticulous review journey, the journal strives to foster impactful research contributions to the broader academic community.
