1
Submission
Authors 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
7 days
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, a manuscript must align with the journal's focus and scope, follow the required manuscript format, and have a similarity score of no more than [X]%, in accordance with the journal's Screening for Plagiarism policy. Manuscripts are also screened for ethical compliance and adherence to academic integrity standards.
3
Peer Review
21–30 days
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's field of law (for example, Islamic law, customary law and legal pluralism, legal theory, constitutional law, comparative law, human rights, or environmental law). 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 revisions required prior to publication. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic integrity.
4
Revision
14–21 days
Authors revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations, as set out in the reviewers' form.
5
Final Editorial Review
Second round (major revisions only): +14–21 daysEditorial Board evaluation: 14–21 days
Manuscripts requiring major revisions are returned to the same peer reviewers for a second round of review. The Editorial Board then evaluates the revised manuscript together with the authors' responses to the reviewers' comments. The time required for this evaluation depends on submission order.
6
Editorial Decision
3 days
Following the Editor-in-Chief's final decision, authors receive an official notification of acceptance, revision, or rejection. Additional information or clarification may be requested at this stage if necessary. 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
7 days
Accepted manuscripts are checked against the maximum similarity score of [X]% and then edited by the journal's editorial staff for language, referencing consistency (see the Zotero requirement in the Author Guidelines), and final formatting prior to publication.
8
Proofreading and Final Corrections
7 days
The formatted manuscript is proofread by the journal's editorial staff. A galley proof of the formatted article is also sent to the authors for final approval. If no further changes are requested, the article proceeds to publication.
9
Publication
About 3–4 months from submission
Authors are notified once their manuscript has been published, in accordance with the journal's twice-yearly publication schedule (January and July). 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
Societas Law Review 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:
1Confidentiality
The entire review process is confidential. Editors, reviewers, and all relevant parties must maintain the confidentiality of manuscript-related information.
2Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviews are conducted objectively and without bias. Evaluation is based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal's fields of legal scholarship, and methodological quality, and is free from conflicts of interest. Feedback provided to authors should be constructive.
3Timeliness
The review process is conducted within a reasonable timeframe, and authors are regularly informed about the status of their manuscript.
4Transparency 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.
5Conflict 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.
6Plagiarism 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.
7Reviewer Recognition
Societas Law Review 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, Societas Law Review 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.