Eligibility
Being a reviewer is a matter of prestige and personnel achievement. The benefits of reviewing include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for the journal as part of your professional service contributions. Eligible for a reviewer of Journal of Liberty and International Affairs is a person, who is recognized as an expert in particular scientific field of interest of the journal, with a strong publication history, working in an academic / research institution, or as an individual researcher, who accepts JLIA standards, instructions for reviewers and publication ethics, work promptly and correctly under firm deadline and speaking English fluently and using internet actively.


Reviewer Selection
We decide on reviewers for a particular article based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors etc. Reviewers for the articles will be found issue by issue. As part of our editorial procedure, we regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them articles to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information. Reviewers invited by the editors should reveal any potential conflict of interest they may have with respect to the article or the authors. All likely personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest should be considered.

The journal's editorial team reserves the right to make the final decision with respect to reviewers.     

 

Criteria for Publication
Articles should represent a substantial advance in the particular field within the scope of the journal in terms of:

  • Originality (in empirical or theoretical sense);
  • Importance to researchers in the field; and
  • Interest for readers and researchers outside the field.


Peer Review Process

  • After receiving the article, the corresponding author is sent a confirmation Email.
  • Articles are subjects to initial editorial screening and anonymous peer-review by two reviewers who will be selected by the editors. This journal operates a closed peer-review process, meaning that reviewers will not know author details and will themselves remain anonymous to the author.
  • The journal editors reserve the right to return to authors, without peer-review, improperly formatted articles.
  • The journal editorial office does not store electronic materials that are not accepted for publication, and does not delivered back to the authors.
  • The originals of review are stored in a review of the editorial board for one year and, at the request of the authors or IRES Scientific Council.
  • All articles will be checked for plagiarism before being sent to the reviewers. The journal uses the plagiarism screening tool PlagScan, but also reviewers should alert the editors if they suspect any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism.
  • All articles are evaluated according to the reviewers’ recommendations.

There are several types of decision possible:

  1. Accept the article as submitted;
  2. Accept it with minor revision;
  3. Accept it with major revision; and
  4. Reject the article because it does not fit the journal criteria.
  • Within three weeks after the initial submission, the corresponding author will receive an Email confirming whether the article has been rejected. Otherwise, he will receive recommendations expressed anonymously by two reviewers, for revisions to be made before the article is finally approved and published.
  • The revised article must be submitted within one week of the first answer.
  • The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor-in-chief in consultation with associate editors and IAC members (who are experts in the article field), taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations. This decision, together with any relevant reasons, will be sent to the corresponding author.
  • After an article has been accepted for publication, it is processed and typeset in accordance with the design guidelines of the journal, then the corresponding author is issued an acceptance letter and a payment method via Email, and finally, the accepted article is published on the website of the journal, along with all other articles in the issue.

Differences of opinion between reviewers

When differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the editor-in-chief in consultation with associate editors weighs all comments and arrives at a balanced decision based on all comments. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editor-in-chief and associate editors with as much information as possible. A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much, or even more, value as one that makes a direct recommendation.

If reviewers appear to disagree fundamentally, the editor-in-chief in consultation with associate editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and by this means elicit additional comments that may help the editor-in-chief and associate editors to make a decision. The editor-in-chief and associate editors then assess the recommendations and comments of the reviewers alongside comments by the authors and material that may not have been made available to those reviewers.

When the article has been revised in response to comments by reviewers, or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, we ask reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised or contested article. We request that reviewers make themselves available to provide such follow-up advice.
 

Expectations Post Review
(in compliance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers)

Peer-reviewers should:

  • Continue to keep details of the article and its review confidential.
  • Respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of an article  and provide the information required.
  • Contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • Read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • Try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of articles they have reviewed.

 

We appreciate the time and effort all our reviewers spend evaluating articles for Journal of Liberty and International Affairs.