Lus Publicum: Journal of Law, Public Policy, and Humanities employs a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they comply with the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript format, and basic academic standards. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may undergo a plagiarism or similarity check. The editorial team may reject manuscripts containing significant plagiarism, substantial unattributed similarity, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct.

3. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Lus Publicum applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

1. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
2. Originality and novelty of the research.
3. Clarity and significance of the research problem.
4. Adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology or analytical approach.
5. Quality and relevance of the literature and references.
6. Coherence and depth of analysis and discussion.
7. Validity and significance of the findings.
8. Quality of conclusions and contributions to scholarship.
9. Clarity, organization, and academic quality of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

1. Accept without revision.
2. Accept with minor revisions.
3. Revise and resubmit with major revisions.
4. Reject.

The final editorial decision is made by the editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and the overall assessment of its scholarly contribution. The editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation if there are valid academic or editorial reasons for a different decision.

5. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editors' comments. Authors may be asked to provide a response to each substantive reviewer comment explaining how the manuscript has been revised.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions are required.

6. Final Decision

The editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection after considering the peer-review reports and the revised manuscript, where applicable.

Acceptance for publication is subject to the manuscript meeting the journal's academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

7. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and information obtained during the review process. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must also declare any potential conflict of interest and decline the review when their impartiality may be compromised.

8. Review Timeline

Lus Publicum aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the time required for revisions.

The editorial team reserves the right to contact additional reviewers when necessary to obtain an appropriate and balanced assessment.

9. Editorial Independence

All editorial and peer-review decisions are made based on academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution. Decisions must not be influenced by the author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

Through this peer-review process, Lus Publicum is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and quality of its scholarly publications.