Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Veritas Socialis et Legalis (Veritas Soc. Leg.)

Double-Blind Peer Review System

Review Policy

Veritas Socialis et Legalis (Veritas Soc. Leg.) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All submissions are evaluated based on their originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, policy relevance, clarity of presentation, and significance to the fields of social sciences, law, governance, political studies, public policy, and regulation.

Peer Review Workflow

Step 1

Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

Step 2

Initial Editorial Screening

Editors assess the manuscript's scope, formatting, originality, and overall suitability.

Step 3

Plagiarism Check

Manuscripts undergo similarity screening using plagiarism detection software before review.

Step 4

Reviewer Assignment

At least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Step 5

Double-Blind Review

Reviewers assess originality, methodology, significance, theoretical contribution, and policy implications.

Step 6

Revision

Authors revise the manuscript based on reviewers' recommendations and editorial feedback.

Step 7

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

Step 8

Publication

Accepted articles proceed to copyediting, proofreading, production, and online publication.

Review Criteria

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Theoretical and conceptual contribution.
  • Methodological rigor and validity.
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
  • Policy and practical significance.
  • Quality of academic writing and presentation.
  • Compliance with ethical standards.

Editorial Decisions

Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject

Estimated Review Timeline

Initial Editorial Screening 1–7 Days
Peer Review Process 2–6 Weeks
Author Revision 1–4 Weeks
Final Decision & Publication 1–2 Weeks

Ethical Review Standards

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, provide objective and constructive feedback, disclose conflicts of interest, and adhere to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).