1. Submission
Author(s) are required to submit manuscripts that align with the journal's aims and scope and are prepared in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines. All submissions must be made through the online submission system.
2. Initial Editorial Review
The Editor-in-Chief, together with at least two members of the Editorial Board, conducts an initial screening of each submitted manuscript. To proceed beyond this stage, the manuscript must align with the journal's focus and scope, follow the required manuscript format, and demonstrate a similarity score, per the journal's Screening for Plagiarism policy, of no more than [X]%. Manuscripts are also screened for ethical compliance and adherence to academic integrity standards. (Estimated processing time: 7 days).
3. Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two reviewers with relevant expertise in criminal law, criminal justice, or criminology. The selected peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions
- Reject
Authors are notified of the reviewers' decisions through the system, including any required revisions prior to publication. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic integrity. (Estimated processing time: 21–30 days).
4. Revision
Authors revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ form recommendations. (Estimated processing time: 14–21 days).
5. Final Editorial Review
Manuscripts requiring major revisions are returned to the same peer reviewers for a second round of review. (Additional estimated processing time: 14–21 days). The Editorial Board then evaluates the revised manuscript together with the author(s)' responses to the reviewers' comments. (Estimated processing time: 14–21 days, depending on submission order).
6. Editorial Decision
Following the Editor-in-Chief's final decision, the author(s) receive an official notification of acceptance, revision, or rejection. Additional information or clarification may be requested at this stage if necessary. (Estimated processing time: 3 days). If a manuscript does not meet the format requirements, authors will be asked to revise and resubmit their work. In cases of desk rejection, authors may submit a revised manuscript only after fully addressing the identified issues.
7. Copyediting and Layout
Accepted manuscripts are checked for a maximum similarity score of [X]% and then edited by the journal's editorial staff for language, referencing consistency (see the journal's Zotero requirement in the Author Guidelines), and final formatting prior to publication. (Estimated processing time: 7 days).
8. Proofreading and Final Corrections
The formatted manuscript undergoes proofreading by the journal's editorial staff. A galley proof of the formatted article is also sent to the author(s) for final approval. If no further changes are requested, the article proceeds to publication. (Estimated processing time: 7 days).
9. Publication
Author(s) are notified once their manuscript has been published, in accordance with the journal's quarterly publication schedule (January, April, July, and October). The estimated time from initial submission to publication is approximately 3–4 months, subject to the volume and complexity of the revisions required.
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for the Peer Review Process
Iustitia Criminal Science is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to preventing malpractice throughout the peer review process. The principles the journal adheres to are as follows:
- Confidentiality: The entire review process is confidential. Editors, reviewers, and all relevant parties must maintain the confidentiality of manuscript-related information.
- Objectivity and Impartiality: Reviews are conducted objectively and without bias. Evaluation is based on scholarly merit, relevance to criminal law and criminal justice scholarship, and methodological quality, free from conflicts of interest. Feedback provided to authors should be constructive.
- Timeliness: The review process is conducted within a reasonable timeframe, and authors are regularly informed about the status of their manuscript.
- Transparency and Accountability: The review process is transparent and accountable. Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive comments. Editorial decisions are made fairly, based on reviewer feedback and editorial expertise.
- Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity. Where a conflict of interest is identified, steps are taken to ensure an impartial evaluation.
- Plagiarism and Research Misconduct: Editors and reviewers remain vigilant in identifying potential plagiarism, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct. Any suspected misconduct is reported to the relevant authorities in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.
- Reviewer Recognition: Iustitia Criminal Science values the contribution of its peer reviewers and provides appropriate recognition and appreciation for their dedication to the publication process.
By adhering to these principles, Iustitia Criminal Science is dedicated to maintaining the integrity and credibility of its peer review process, ensuring fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct in manuscript evaluation, and thereby upholding the quality and trustworthiness of its published research.