All articles submitted to a LLP journal are initially assessed by an editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer-review. Submissions considered suitable for peer-review are assigned to independent experts, who are asked to assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a decision to for ask for revisions, accept or reject the submission. If conflicting review feedback is provided, or if the feedback is unclear, then the editor will engage with the reviewers to further discuss the submission and the suggested editorial decision. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editors-in-Chief, who are supported by an expert editorial board.
LLP journals can operate anonymized or open peer-review processes. Journals also have the option of releasing their peer-review comments alongside publications, either in an anonymized or open format. Whilst the press encourages open processes, journals are able to choose their preferred review option. All reviewers must provide a competing interests statement prior to returning their review feedback.
We aim to make the review process as efficient as possible, whilst maintaining a high quality of reviewer feedback. In most cases, the review period is expected to take under six weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.
Specific Editorial Policies are provided on the individual journal websites.