Peer Review Process

The Journal of Religion, Local Politics, and Law employs a rigorous and transparent peer-review process designed to uphold the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and fairness. All submissions classified as research articles undergo this structured evaluation.

1. Initial Screening & Desk Review

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial check by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. This stage assesses:

  • Conformity with Scope: Relevance to the journal's aims and themes.

  • Basic Quality: Adherence to submission guidelines, formatting, and language standards.

  • Originality & Ethics: Screening for plagiarism and obvious ethical concerns using Turnitin or similar software. Manuscripts failing this screening will be returned to the author or rejected without further review.

2. Invitation to Reviewers

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor (Associate Editor or the Editor-in-Chief). The editor then invites at least two (2) independent external reviewers based on:

  • Expertise matching the manuscript's topic.

  • Absence of any conflict of interest.

  • Proven record of timely, constructive reviews.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Our journal uses a double-blind peer-review model:

  • Reviewer Anonymity: The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

  • Author Anonymity: All identifying information about the authors (name, affiliation, acknowledgments) is removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers.

This system ensures evaluations are based solely on the intellectual content of the work.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to specific criteria and provide a structured report recommending one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision

  • Accept after minor revisions

  • Accept after major revisions

  • Reject

Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments to justify their recommendation and guide the author's revision, if needed.

5. Editorial Decision

The handling editor consolidates the reviewer reports and makes one of four editorial decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

The editor may also decide to seek an additional (third) review in cases of conflicting recommendations or for highly specialized manuscripts. This decision is communicated to the author along with the anonymized reviewer comments.

6. Revision & Re-evaluation

  • For "Minor Revisions," authors are given a short timeframe to submit corrections. The revised manuscript is typically reviewed by the handling editor only.

  • For "Major Revisions," authors are given a more substantial period for revision. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a detailed "point-by-point response" letter explaining how each reviewer comment was addressed. The revised manuscript is usually sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

7. Final Acceptance & Production

Once a manuscript is deemed acceptable, a formal acceptance letter is issued. The manuscript then proceeds to the production stage for copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading, where authors will review the final gallery proofs before online publication.

Key Principles & Timeline:

  • Confidentiality: All participants must treat the manuscript as confidential.

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be objective, with clear, evidence-based critiques.

  • Timeliness: We strive for a swift process. Reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks. The typical time from submission to a first decision is 8-12 weeks, depending on the revision cycles.

  • Transparency: This process overview is publicly available on our website.

This robust process ensures that every published article in the Journal of Religion, Local Politics, and Law contributes valuable, validated knowledge to the scholarly community.