I. Peer Review Process

The Journal of Law, Society, and Authority (JLSA) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, fairness, and editorial independence. All manuscripts considered for publication undergo a structured double-blind peer-review process designed to assess their originality, scholarly relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution to the fields of law, political science, international relations, and related areas within the journal’s scope.

The journal’s submission and peer-review process is managed through the Algerian Scientific Journal Platform (ASJP). The journal’s OJS platform is used for online publication, dissemination, and archiving of accepted articles.

1. Submission of the Manuscript

Authors must register on the ASJP platform before submitting a manuscript. The author submits the manuscript and the required information through the journal’s submission system and can follow the progress of the manuscript throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

The ASJP platform allows authors to:

• submit their manuscript;
• follow the different stages of editorial and peer review;
• receive editorial decisions and reviewers’ comments;
• submit revised versions when revisions are requested; and
• complete the required bibliographic information before publication.

Authors are expected to follow the journal’s submission guidelines and manuscript template when preparing their submissions.

In exceptional cases, where an author encounters technical difficulties or is unable to complete the online submission process, the editorial office may assist by registering the submission administratively on the author’s behalf. In such cases, the manuscript remains registered under the author’s name. The editorial staff member who enters the submission acts solely in an administrative capacity and has no editorial or decision-making role in the evaluation of the manuscript.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is received by the Editor-in-Chief and undergoes an initial editorial screening.

At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief and/or the editorial team assess:

• the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• compliance with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
• the basic quality and coherence of the manuscript;
• originality and scholarly relevance;
• methodological and academic standards; and
• compliance with applicable research and publication ethics requirements.

The manuscript may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) if it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the journal’s basic academic or formal requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for peer review.

3. Preparation for Double-Blind Peer Review

Before the manuscript is sent for external peer review, the editorial office prepares it for double-blind evaluation.

All identifying information is removed from the review version of the manuscript, including the author’s name, institutional affiliation, email address, acknowledgements, and other information that could directly identify the author.

The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently, without knowledge of the identity or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

Likewise, the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

4. Assignment to an Associate Editor

Following the initial screening and anonymization, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor whose academic expertise corresponds as closely as possible to the subject, discipline, and specific research topic of the manuscript.

The Associate Editor is responsible for overseeing the external peer-review process and coordinating the evaluation of the manuscript.

The assignment is made according to the subject matter and scholarly specialization of the Associate Editor, with the aim of ensuring that the manuscript is handled by an editor with appropriate expertise.

5. Selection of External Reviewers

The Associate Editor selects two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic specialization and expertise in relation to the subject of the manuscript. A reviewer may decline an assignment where the manuscript falls outside their field of expertise or where they consider themselves unable to provide an appropriate scholarly evaluation.

The manuscript is provided to associate editors and reviewers in its anonymized form, and the identity and institutional affiliation of the author(s) are not disclosed to them. Likewise, the identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to the author(s).

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

The two reviewers independently evaluate the anonymized manuscript through the ASJP peer-review system, using the structured evaluation form provided by the platform.

The review form requires reviewers to provide an overall recommendation and to assess several aspects of the manuscript, including:

• Recommendation: Accept; Accept with minor revision; Accept with major revision; or Refuse.
• Contribution category: Theoretical; Balanced between theory and practice; or Practical.
• Originality of the information presented: New information or Confirmation of current knowledge.
• Paper originality: Whether the manuscript is totally or largely different from other contributions, moderately different, or totally or largely identical to other contributions; reviewers may also indicate when they are unable to assess this aspect.
• Quality of writing: Assessment of the quality of the language and writing style on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates unacceptable quality and 4 indicates that the manuscript is publishable as is.

In addition to the structured evaluation, reviewers provide written comments concerning the manuscript. These comments may address, as appropriate, the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, originality and contribution, theoretical framework, engagement with the literature, methodology, analysis and argumentation, accuracy and reliability of sources or data, structure and academic presentation, and the quality and consistency of references.

The ASJP review form also provides a confidential section for comments to the Associate Editor. These comments are intended exclusively for the Associate Editor and are not communicated to the author.

The reviewer’s comments intended for the author are submitted through the designated section of the ASJP review form. They are transmitted to the author anonymously with respect to the reviewer’s identity, in accordance with the journal’s double-blind peer-review procedure.

Each reviewer therefore provides both a structured assessment through the ASJP evaluation form and, where appropriate, qualitative written observations and recommendations to support the editorial decision and help the author improve the manuscript.

7. Divergence Between Reviewers

Where the two reviewers reach substantially different conclusions concerning the manuscript, the Associate Editor assesses both reports and may request a third independent review.

When a third reviewer is consulted, the additional evaluation is taken into consideration by the Associate Editor in determining the editorial recommendation, particularly where the first two evaluations differ significantly.

The Associate Editor then prepares the editorial recommendation based on the reviewers’ reports and the Associate Editor’s own assessment of the manuscript.

8. Associate Editor’s Recommendation

After receiving and assessing the reviewers’ evaluations, the Associate Editor determines the appropriate editorial recommendation and returns the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief through the ASJP platform.

The Associate Editor communicates the recommendation through the designated ASJP decision field and may provide additional observations concerning the manuscript and the peer-review process.

The ASJP Associate Editor’s account also provides a confidential section for comments intended exclusively for the Editor-in-Chief. These comments are not communicated to the author and allow the Associate Editor to provide additional observations or explain the basis of the recommendation.

The Associate Editor then returns the manuscript, together with the reviewers’ evaluations and the editorial recommendation, to the Editor-in-Chief for the final editorial decision.

The Associate Editor’s recommendation is an important part of the editorial process, while the Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial responsibility for the publication decision.

9. Editorial Decision and Communication to the Author

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript, the reviewers’ reports, and the Associate Editor’s recommendation before making the final editorial decision.

The decision and the relevant reviewers’ comments are communicated to the author through the ASJP platform.

Where revisions are requested, the author is invited to revise the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Authors should carefully address the comments and, where appropriate, provide a response explaining how the requested revisions have been addressed.

Where a manuscript is rejected, the author is informed of the decision and, where applicable, receives the relevant editorial and peer-review feedback.

10. Revision and Resubmission

Authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts must submit the revised version through the ASJP platform, where it remains linked to the original submission and its editorial history.

The revised manuscript may be reassessed by:

• the original reviewers;
• the Associate Editor; or
• additional reviewers, where considered necessary.

The extent of further evaluation depends on the nature and significance of the revisions requested.

A decision to accept a manuscript is made only after the editorial team is satisfied that the required revisions have been adequately addressed.

11. Final Acceptance and Bibliographic Information

Once the manuscript has received final acceptance, the author is required to enter the complete bibliographic information of the manuscript through their ASJP account.

The entered bibliographic information is subsequently reviewed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief before the manuscript proceeds to the pre-publication stage.

Once the manuscripts selected for an issue have received final acceptance and their bibliographic information has been approved, the Editor-in-Chief transfers the accepted manuscripts through the ASJP platform to the Production Team for pre-publication processing.

12. Pre-Publication and Production Editing

The Production Team is responsible for preparing the accepted manuscripts for publication in accordance with the journal’s editorial and formatting standards.

At this stage, the Production Team verifies and finalizes, among other elements:

• conformity with the journal’s official template;
• the title and author information;
• institutional affiliation;
• ORCID identification, where applicable;
• formatting and presentation of the manuscript;
• pagination;
• volume and issue information; and
• other bibliographic and editorial elements required for publication.

The manuscripts remain in their editable Word format during this pre-publication stage.

Once the Production Team has completed the initial production work, the processed manuscripts are returned through ASJP to the Editor-in-Chief for final editorial verification.

Where corrections or adjustments are required, the Editor-in-Chief returns the relevant manuscript(s) to the Production Team through ASJP with the necessary instructions. The Production Team makes the required adjustments and resubmits the revised production version to the Editor-in-Chief for verification.

This process continues until the final presentation of the manuscripts has been approved.

13. Organization of the Issue

After the production versions have been finalized, the Editor-in-Chief determines the composition and organization of the issue.

The articles are arranged according to the editorial organization and thematic coherence of the issue, rather than according to the authors’ names or alphabetical order.

The Editor-in-Chief determines the order of the articles and communicates the final organization of the issue to the Production Team through the ASJP platform.

The Production Team then prepares the final publication files accordingly.

14. Final Publication on ASJP

At the final publication stage, the Production Team converts the finalized manuscripts into PDF format and prepares the complete issue for online publication.

The final article files include the relevant publication information, including, as applicable:

• submission date;
• acceptance date;
• publication date;
• volume and issue;
• beginning and ending page numbers; and
• other required bibliographic information.

The Production Team also prepares the cover of the issue and the introductory and front-matter pages of the journal issue, including the relevant editorial and journal information, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, recommendations to authors, and the table of contents.

The complete issue and its constituent articles are then submitted through ASJP to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval and scheduling.

The Editor-in-Chief determines the official publication date of the issue. JLSA publishes two regular issues per year, in March and September.

On the scheduled publication date, the Editor-in-Chief releases the issue online through ASJP, making the final articles and issue materials publicly available.

15. Publication and Dissemination through OJS

Following the final publication on ASJP, the published articles are also uploaded to the journal’s OJS platform, which serves as the journal’s principal online publication, dissemination, and archiving platform.

The OJS version reproduces the final published articles and issue information. At this stage, the articles are assigned their respective Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and are made available as final published articles.

The publication on OJS takes place on the same official publication date as the issue released through ASJP.

Thus, JLSA uses the two platforms for complementary purposes:

16. Transparency and Editorial Independence

All stages of the editorial and peer-review process are conducted with the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and editorial independence.

The journal takes reasonable measures to prevent conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and editors. Editors and reviewers must not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process where they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic and scholarly merits of the manuscript and are not influenced by the author’s personal, institutional, geographical, political, religious, or other non-academic characteristics.

The double-blind peer-review procedure is intended to protect both authors and reviewers and to promote a fair and independent scholarly evaluation.

II. Special Issues: Editorial and Peer-Review Procedures

A Special Issue of the Journal of Law, Society, and Authority (JLSA) is a thematic issue devoted to a clearly defined topic falling within the journal’s scope and areas of academic interest. Special Issues are subject to the same editorial standards, peer-review requirements, publication ethics, and publication policies as the journal’s regular issues.

1. Proposal and Approval

Special Issue themes may be proposed by a Guest Editor or by members of the journal’s Editorial Board. Any proposed theme must fall within the scope of JLSA and must demonstrate a clear thematic relationship with the journal’s academic mission and fields of research.

A Special Issue is established only after its proposed theme and editorial arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board where appropriate.

The approval of a Special Issue does not transfer ultimate editorial responsibility for the issue away from the journal.

2. Selection and Role of the Guest Editor

Guest Editors are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, research profile, and professional qualifications relevant to the proposed theme. Their credentials are reviewed and approved by the journal’s editorial leadership before their appointment.

A Guest Editor may assist JLSA in developing and coordinating a Special Issue and may:

• propose the thematic focus of the issue;
• assist in preparing the Call for Papers;
• identify and communicate with potential contributors; and
• assist in coordinating submissions intended for the Special Issue.

The Guest Editor does not exercise independent editorial authority over the Special Issue. All manuscripts remain subject to JLSA’s established editorial procedures and to the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief and designated members of the Editorial Board.

3. Submission and Editorial Handling

Contributions intended for a Special Issue are submitted through the journal’s designated submission channel, the ASJP platform.

Where necessary, the editorial office may register a manuscript administratively on behalf of an author who encounters technical difficulties. Such administrative assistance does not confer any editorial role or influence upon the staff member registering the manuscript.

Once registered, each manuscript enters JLSA’s standard editorial workflow. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the submission and assigns it to an Associate Editor, according to the subject and specialization of the manuscript.

The Guest Editor does not determine the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

4. Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to a Special Issue undergo the same editorial screening and double-blind peer-review process as manuscripts submitted to regular issues of JLSA.

Manuscripts are evaluated by two reviewers through the journal’s established peer-review procedure. Where the evaluations differ substantially, a third reviewer may be consulted in accordance with the journal’s regular peer-review policy.

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers’ assessments, the academic quality of the manuscript, and JLSA’s editorial standards.

The thematic nature of a Special Issue, or the fact that a contribution has been invited or solicited, does not constitute a basis for exemption from peer review or for preferential treatment.

5. Independence and Guest Editor Submissions

Where a Guest Editor submits a manuscript to the Special Issue, that manuscript is handled through an independent editorial process.

The Guest Editor has no role in selecting reviewers, evaluating the manuscript, recommending its acceptance or rejection, or influencing the editorial decision concerning their own submission.

Such manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor and undergo the same double-blind peer-review requirements as all other submissions.

Articles authored or co-authored by Guest Editors shall not constitute more than 25% of the total articles published in the Special Issue.

6. Editorial Oversight and Final Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate editorial responsibility for the content and publication of every JLSA issue, including Special Issues.

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the work of Guest Editors and ensures that:

• the Special Issue remains within the scope of the journal;
• the proposed theme demonstrates clear thematic coherence;
• JLSA’s editorial, peer-review, and publication-ethics policies are consistently applied;
• Guest Editors have appropriate academic qualifications and expertise;
• appropriate Associate Editors and reviewers are involved in the editorial process where required;
• manuscripts submitted by Guest Editors are handled independently; and
• all manuscripts meet the journal’s academic and ethical standards.

The Guest Editor’s role is therefore coordinating and thematic rather than autonomous editorial decision-making.

7. Publication

Once the editorial and peer-review process has been completed and the manuscripts have received final acceptance, Special Issue articles are prepared and published according to the same production, metadata, DOI, licensing, and archiving procedures applicable to JLSA’s regular issues.

Special Issues are clearly identified as such on the journal’s website and in the published issue.

Journal of Law, Society, and Authority (JLSA)
Editorial and Peer-Review Workflow