Peer Review Process

Journal of Law, Public Policy and Public Finance (JLPF) operates double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process.

• Initial check. Each submission is checked by the editorial office for scope, completeness and compliance with the author guidelines. Submissions that are out of scope or do not meet basic standards may be declined without external review.
• Reviewer selection. Manuscripts that pass the initial check are sent to two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. Reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest: they may not share an affiliation with any author, may not have co-authored with the authors, and may not review for a journal in which their own manuscript is under review.
• Timeline. Reviewers are asked to accept or decline an invitation within 48 hours and to complete their review within the period stated in the invitation (between 3 and 7 days). Reviewers who cannot complete a review on time are replaced so that authors are not kept waiting.
• Recommendations. Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection, and provide comments for the authors and, optionally, confidential comments for the editor.
• Decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the decision on the basis of the reviews received. Where reviewers disagree, an additional review may be sought. Authors receive the reviewers' comments with the decision.
• Revision. Revised manuscripts are checked against the reviewers' comments and, where necessary, returned to the reviewers.
• Appeals. Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the editorial office with a reasoned explanation; appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and are handled following COPE guidance.