Review Policies

Editorial & Peer Review Policies

LASSIJ strictly follows its policy and procedure of editorial and peer review through which it is ensured that:

  • the content of the article is relevant to the aim/scope of LASSIJ;
  • the article has produced an innovative and quality research;
  • the format and layout of LASSIJ is followed; and
  • the style, grammar and composition of language is correct. 

The review policy of LASSIJ involves editorial-review as well as peer-review. If accepted by the editorial team, the article is processed for double-blind peer-review by relevant experts of an international repute. Prior to the approval for publication, an article must be accepted by at least three experts. The identity of the author(s) is kept secret from peer-reviewers and vice versa in the peer-review procedure. The peer-reviewers know the identity of authors only after publication of the article.

  • Article submitted to LASSIJ is assigned to a section editor who is responsible for processing it according to the LASSIJ policy and procedure. 
  • The section editor shares the article with a copy editor for a pre-peer-review editing.
  • The suggestions and comments are shared with correspondence author for revision of the article accordingly.
  • After re-submission, the editor may accept the revised submission with minor changes, with major changes, without changes or reject it out-rightly.
  • If accepted by the editor, the section editor forwards the article for double-blind peer-review to one local and two foreign subject experts/specialists of an international repute.
  • The peer-reviewer specifically evaluates the article for quality of the research on the basis of its relevancy, originality, and innovation.
  • The author(s) must incorporate all the required changes according the suggestions and comments. In case of difference(s), if any, the author(s) may record clarification(s)/explanation(s) for each observation/comment.
  • The revised draft of the article is reviewed by the section for validation and verification of the required changes according to the suggestions and comments of the reviewers.
  • An expert opinion of editorial advisers may be requested for resolving the differences or the conflicting reports, if any.
  • The final decision about publishing or rejecting the revised and updated article is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

The peer-reviewers of LASSIJ caries out the evaluate of an article on the basis of following 10 principles and standards as minimum requirement for acceptance of an article. 

  1. The title is brief, clear and appropriate to the content/purpose of article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 10 to 12 words long and summarises the main idea or ideas of the study.)
  2. The abstract accurately describes content of the paper. (Example: It discusses a compact view of the research problem, purpose of study, research design, key findings, and is 180-200 words long.)
  3. The Keywords are enough and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title, and supplement the title's contents. These are descriptive, represents key concepts, nouns, and are 7-10 words.)
  4. The Introduction give an overview from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), an outline of remaining structure/organisation of the article.)
  5. The Literature Review gives an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the larger field of the study. (Example: It gives a description, summary, and critical evaluation of sources explored in relation with research problem(s) being investigated.)
  6. Research Methodology is adequately described. (Example: It describes the actions taken for investigation of the research problem and the rationale for the application of the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyse the information applied to understanding the problem.)
  7. Results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the findings of the study based upon the methodology(ies) being applied, and in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation, if data is generated from the author’s own research.)
  8. Discussion is clear and are the findings accurately analysed. (Example: It interprets and describes significance of findings in light of what was already known about research problem. It explains new understanding or insights being emerged based on studying the problem. It is connected to introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature reviewed.)
  9. Conclusion is supported by findings of the results. (Example: It helps the readers to understand why the research should matter to them. It gives a synthesis of key points and, (if applicable), recommends new areas for future research.)
  10. English Language and Style meets the standard. (Example: It is clear, unambiguous and objective, i.e. gives reasons, evidence. It uses active voice and minimum level of passive voice is used where required. Mostly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminologies.)