Review process 

Review Process

Type of peer review
SRLS uses an anonymous (double‑blind) peer‑review system. Authors do not know who the reviewers are, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identities. The journal follows good‑practice recommendations for peer review, including those outlined by COPE, which can be consulted at:
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Editorial steps

1. Initial check

• When a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office and/or Editor‑in‑Chief checks whether it fits the journal’s scope, meets basic quality and format requirements, and follows ethical policies (including plagiarism screening).

• Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope or have major ethical or formal problems may be rejected at this stage.

2. Assignment to handling editor and reviewers

• Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor with expertise in the subject area.

• The handling editor invites external reviewers who have relevant knowledge and a publication record in the field.

• The goal is to obtain at least two independent, detailed review reports; in some cases, more reviewers may be asked.

3. First decision
   After receiving the reviewers’ comments, the handling editor evaluates the reports and the manuscript and makes a recommendation to the Editor‑in‑Chief. The main decision categories are:

• Accept

• Minor revision

• Major revision

• Reject

The Editor‑in‑Chief considers the recommendation and the reviewers’ comments and then issues the formal decision, which is sent to the corresponding author along with anonymized reports.

4. Revisions and responses

• If revisions are requested, the authors prepare a revised manuscript and a “Response to Reviewers” document that addresses each comment point by point.

• The revised version and responses are evaluated by the handling editor and, when needed, may be sent back to some or all reviewers for further assessment.

5. Final decision

• Based on the revised manuscript, the responses, and any additional reviewer input, the handling editor recommends acceptance, further revision, or rejection.

• The Editor‑in‑Chief makes the final decision, taking into account scientific quality, clarity, relevance to the journal, and compliance with ethical and legal requirements (including copyright and plagiarism).

6. Post‑acceptance
   Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy‑editing and language editing to improve clarity and consistency, followed by typesetting and online publication.