Peer Review Process

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Overview

The Review of Studies on Criminology, Sociology, and Law (RSCSL) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly excellence through a rigorous, fair, timely, and transparent peer review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes editorial evaluation and independent expert review to ensure that published research demonstrates originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, scholarly significance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

The peer review process serves to improve the quality of manuscripts through constructive scholarly evaluation while preserving the integrity of the academic record. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic merit and are made independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, professional position, gender, funding source, political or legal affiliations, or ability to pay publication fees.

 

Double-Blind Peer Review

RSCSL employs a double-blind peer review system. Under this model:

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
  • Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly content and quality of the manuscript.
This review model minimizes potential bias and promotes fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and objective evaluation throughout the editorial process.
 

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation conducted by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Academic Editor. The preliminary assessment determines whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope
  • Demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality and originality
  • Complies with the journal's formatting and submission requirements
  • Meets ethical and publication standards
  • Includes all required declarations and supporting documentation
  • Successfully passes originality screening using plagiarism detection software
  • Is suitable for external peer review

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or declined without external review if they are clearly unsuitable for publication.

 

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers possessing recognized expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise
  • Research and publication experience
  • Professional independence from the authors
  • Absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest

The final selection of reviewers is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Academic Editor.

Authors may recommend qualified reviewers or identify individuals they prefer not to review their manuscript. Such recommendations may be considered at the discretion of the Editorial Office but are not binding on the journal.
 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively
  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation
  • Decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe
  • Provide evidence-based recommendations supported by scholarly reasoning
  • Identify important published literature that should be considered by the authors
  • Report suspected ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, unethical practices, publication misconduct)
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research, professional advancement, legal proceedings, or any unauthorized purpose.
 

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts using criteria that include:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to aims and scope
  • Significance of research problem
  • Contribution to relevant disciplines
  • Methodological / legal analytical rigor
  • Quality of data analysis or reasoning
  • Validity and reliability of findings
  • Interpretation of results
  • Organization and presentation
  • Adequacy and accuracy of references
  • Compliance with ethical standards

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive recommendations that improve the scholarly quality, clarity, and impact of the manuscript.

 

Editorial Decisions

Following consideration of the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Academic Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Further Review
  • Reject

Editorial decisions are based on the overall scholarly merit of the manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations. While reviewer reports play a significant role in the decision-making process, the final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed
  • A clear justification for any reviewer recommendations that were not adopted

Manuscripts requiring substantial revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers for further evaluation.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript unless an extension has been approved.
 

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not:

  • Disclose content to unauthorized individuals
  • Discuss unpublished manuscripts outside the process
  • Use unpublished info for personal/commercial purposes
  • Retain/distribute files after review completion

Confidentiality is maintained before, during, and after peer review.

 

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts compromising impartiality, such as:

  • Current/recent collaboration with an author
  • Employment at the same institution
  • Personal/family relationships or financial interests
  • Academic rivalry or relevant legal/policy involvement

Where a conflict exists, the individual must decline, and an alternative will be appointed.

 

Appeals & Oversight

Appeals: Authors believing an editorial decision resulted from significant procedural error or factual misunderstanding may submit a formal appeal. Appeals are reviewed independently.

Ethical Oversight: If concerns regarding research integrity or publication misconduct arise during review, the editorial process may be suspended while investigated.

RSCSL follows COPE guidance for addressing ethics concerns.

Commitment to Quality

The Review of Studies on Criminology, Sociology, and Law (RSCSL) is committed to maintaining an efficient, ethical, transparent, and independent peer review system that promotes academic excellence, research integrity, and responsible scholarly communication. Through collaboration with qualified editors and independent reviewers, the journal strives to ensure that every published article meets internationally recognized standards of scholarly quality and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of criminology, sociology, law, criminal justice, forensic science, public administration, public safety, governance, and related interdisciplinary disciplines.

 

Alignment with International Standards

This policy is informed by the guidance and best practices of: