Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

SASI is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published scholarship through a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, and transparent editorial and peer review process. Every manuscript is assessed according to the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, publication ethics policies, and scholarly standards in legal research.

This policy explains the type of peer review, editorial screening, reviewer selection and assignment, assessment criteria, review timelines, editorial decisions, revision procedures, Letter of Acceptance (LoA), post-acceptance processing, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and editorial accountability.

Important: Final Acceptance and Letter of Acceptance

SASI issues a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) only after the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor has made and recorded a final decision to accept the manuscript for publication.

A positive reviewer recommendation, completion of peer review, a request for minor or major revisions, or a provisional editorial assessment does not by itself authorize the issuance of an LoA. An LoA confirms acceptance; it does not mean that the article has already been published.

Editorial Workflow at a Glance

The following stages describe the normal editorial route from submission to publication. Depending on the manuscript and the editorial decision, additional review rounds, corrections, or other appropriate actions may be required.

Important: The workflow does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period. A manuscript may be returned for correction or rejected at any appropriate stage.

Policy Navigation

Select a section to learn more about the process.

1. Type of Peer Review

SASI applies a double-anonymous peer review process. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors during the peer review process.

Authors must prepare the review manuscript without identifying information where applicable. Author names, affiliations, and other required identifying information should be entered in the designated metadata fields in OJS rather than in the anonymized manuscript file.

Reviewers are selected for their relevant expertise and must evaluate manuscripts independently, objectively, and constructively. Authors and reviewers should not attempt to identify or contact one another about a manuscript under review. If a reviewer believes the author's identity is known and this could affect impartiality, the reviewer should inform the editor.

↑ Back to Top

2. Overview of the Editorial Workflow

The editorial and peer review process at SASI normally follows these stages:

1. Submission: Authors submit the manuscript and required information through the journal's online submission system.
2. Initial editorial screening: The Managing Editor and/or assigned editor checks the manuscript's scope, completeness, format, basic scholarly quality, required declarations, and compliance with journal policies.
3. Similarity screening: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked using iThenticate. The editorial team assesses the report and any potential integrity concerns.
4. Reviewer assignment: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers under the applicable reviewer-number policy.
5. Independent peer review: Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit reports and recommendations to the editor.
6. Editorial evaluation: The editor considers reviewer reports, scholarly merit, relevance, analytical quality, and ethical compliance.
7. Editorial decision: The editor communicates a decision to the authors, such as acceptance, revision, or rejection.
8. Revision and reassessment: If revision is required, authors submit a revised manuscript and responses to the comments. Further review may be requested.
9. Final acceptance and LoA: Once the editor records a final acceptance decision, the journal may issue an LoA in accordance with Section 13 of this policy.
10. Copyediting and production: The accepted manuscript proceeds through the applicable editing, file preparation, proofreading, and quality-control procedures.
11. Publication: The journal verifies publication metadata and files, schedules the article, and makes it publicly available.

Passing initial screening or similarity checking does not guarantee external review, acceptance, or publication. A manuscript may be returned for technical correction or rejected before or after peer review when appropriate.

↑ Back to Top

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is screened by the Managing Editor and/or editorial team before external peer review. The screening evaluates whether the manuscript:

1. fits the Focus and Scope of SASI;
2. complies with the Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements;
3. has an appropriate academic structure and sufficient clarity of presentation;
4. meets basic standards of scholarly writing, legal analysis, and citation;
5. contains the required manuscript components, metadata, and declarations;
6. is appropriately anonymized for double-anonymous peer review;
7. complies with publication ethics requirements;
8. is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal; and
9. does not show apparent serious plagiarism, research misconduct, or other publication malpractice.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned for technical correction or rejected before external peer review. The editorial team should communicate the main reason for a desk rejection or technical return where appropriate.

Initial editorial screening is normally completed within two weeks after submission. This is a target for the initial screening stage only and is not a guarantee of acceptance or publication within two weeks.

↑ Back to Top

4. Similarity Screening and Publication Integrity

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are checked using iThenticate to identify possible plagiarism and other forms of problematic textual overlap.

The similarity report is assessed by the editorial team rather than being treated as an automatic basis for rejection. The team considers the nature, location, and source of the similarity, citation practices, quotations, legitimate textual overlap, previous publications, and whether the report indicates possible plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other misconduct.

Where plagiarism or other serious publication misconduct is identified, the manuscript may be returned for clarification or revision, rejected before peer review, or handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics Policy.

A similarity percentage alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred. A low similarity percentage also does not automatically establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism or other ethical concerns.

↑ Back to Top

5. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected by the editor based on their suitability for the manuscript's subject matter. Potential reviewers may be identified through the journal's reviewer database, relevant academic networks, scholarly publications, or other appropriate professional sources.

The editorial team considers:

1. expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, research question, and legal field;
2. academic, professional, research, or publication experience relevant to the topic;
3. the ability to provide independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments;
4. availability to complete the review within the agreed timeframe; and
5. the absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers must assess manuscripts within their areas of competence. A reviewer who lacks relevant expertise, has a conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within the required timeframe should decline the invitation and notify the editorial team promptly.

Reviewer invitations, responses, assignments, due dates, reports, and recommendations should be recorded in OJS to maintain an auditable editorial record.

↑ Back to Top

6. Assignment and Number of Reviewers

SASI applies the following reviewer assignment policy:

The transition to three reviewers is intended to strengthen the reliability, breadth, and consistency of scholarly assessment while maintaining the double-anonymous peer review model.

The editorial team should apply the applicable reviewer-number policy consistently and maintain accurate records of reviewer assignments and reports. If a reviewer declines, withdraws, or cannot complete an assignment, the editor may invite a qualified replacement reviewer.

↑ Back to Top

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria, as applicable to the manuscript:

1. Scope and relevance: Suitability for the Focus and Scope of SASI.
2. Originality: Originality and novelty of the manuscript's argument, analysis, or findings.
3. Scholarly contribution: Significance and contribution to legal scholarship.
4. Research problem: Clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, or legal issues.
5. Method and analysis: Appropriateness of the research method or legal analytical approach.
6. Quality of discussion: Depth, accuracy, coherence, and critical quality of the analysis.
7. Legal sources and literature: Relevance, accuracy, adequacy, and appropriate use of legal authorities and scholarly sources.
8. Reasoning: Strength and consistency of the legal argument and supporting evidence.
9. Presentation: Clarity, organization, language, readability, and compliance with journal requirements.
10. Ethical integrity: Appropriate acknowledgment of sources and compliance with publication ethics.
11. Overall suitability: The manuscript's suitability for publication in SASI.

Reviewers should provide specific, reasoned, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Reports should identify strengths and weaknesses, explain the basis for the assessment, and recommend improvements where appropriate.

↑ Back to Top

8. Review Timeline

The standard review period is three weeks after a reviewer accepts the review invitation. This is the target for the reviewer's assessment, not the total time from submission to acceptance or publication.

Actual durations may vary because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the time required to secure reviewers, the extent of requested revisions, replacement reviewer appointments, and other circumstances.

Reviewers who require additional time should inform the editorial team promptly. The editor may grant an appropriate extension or appoint another qualified reviewer. Authors may be informed of material delays through OJS or an official communication channel.

These timelines are normal targets, not guarantees of acceptance or publication by a particular date.

↑ Back to Top

9. Reviewers' Assessment and Recommendations

SASI uses a structured review form to support consistency in manuscript assessment. Reviewers evaluate originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, research method or analytical soundness, quality of discussion, citations, presentation, and ethical integrity.

Reviewers submit comments and recommendations to the editorial team. Their recommendations are important considerations but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

The editor evaluates the substance and reasoning of the reports, identifies issues requiring clarification, and determines the appropriate editorial action. Reviewers should notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, serious ethical concerns, or other potential publication-integrity problems.

↑ Back to Top

10. Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or other authorized editorial decision-maker is responsible for the final editorial decision. The decision is based on reviewer reports, scholarly quality, originality, relevance, analytical soundness, ethical compliance, and the journal's policies.

Where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor assesses the substance of the reports and may seek clarification, request additional assessment, or invite another qualified reviewer. The number of positive or negative recommendations alone does not replace a reasoned editorial decision.

A manuscript is considered accepted only after the journal has communicated a final acceptance decision. Completion of peer review, a positive reviewer recommendation, or a revision request does not constitute final acceptance.

↑ Back to Top

11. Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions within the timeframe communicated by the editorial team.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not adopted, the response should explain the reasons clearly.

The editor assesses whether the revision adequately addresses the issues raised. Depending on the extent and significance of the requested changes, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance or the issuance of an LoA. If substantial concerns remain unresolved, the editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript.

Authors who cannot submit a revision within the specified timeframe should request an extension before the deadline expires. Failure to submit a revision or communicate with the editorial team may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn from the editorial process, subject to the journal's applicable procedures.

↑ Back to Top

12. Handling Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Reviewer recommendations may differ because reviewers have different areas of expertise, analytical perspectives, or assessments of a manuscript. A disagreement between reviewers does not automatically determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

When reports conflict materially, the editor should evaluate their substance, evidence, reasoning, and relevance. The editor may request clarification, seek another independent assessment, assess the reports directly where appropriate, or ask the authors to address the substantive concerns before a further decision.

The editor must make a reasoned decision based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, available review evidence, and journal policies. A numerical majority of positive or negative recommendations should not replace substantive editorial assessment.

↑ Back to Top

13. Letter of Acceptance (LoA)

The LoA is an official document confirming that SASI has accepted a specified manuscript for publication. It must accurately reflect the editorial decision and the manuscript details recorded by the journal.

Conditions for Issuing an LoA

An LoA may be issued only when all the following conditions have been met:

1. The required editorial and peer review process has been completed, or the editor has otherwise made a duly authorized final editorial decision in accordance with journal policy.
2. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor has explicitly decided to accept the manuscript for publication.
3. The final acceptance decision has been recorded in OJS or the journal's official editorial records.
4. The manuscript title and author information have been checked against the accepted submission record.
5. Any outstanding conditions that prevent final acceptance have been resolved.

When an LoA Must Not Be Issued

An LoA must not be issued solely because:

• a manuscript has been submitted to SASI;
• the manuscript has passed initial editorial screening or similarity screening;
• reviewers have recommended acceptance but the editor has not made a final acceptance decision;
• the manuscript has received a minor revision or major revision decision;
• the author has submitted a revised manuscript but it has not yet been finally accepted; or
• the author requests an LoA before the editorial decision has been finalized.

Information in the LoA

The LoA should be issued through an official journal communication channel and should contain accurate information, including as applicable:

• the journal's name, SASI;
• the manuscript title as accepted;
• the corresponding author and relevant author information;
• the manuscript identification number, where applicable;
• a clear statement that the manuscript has been accepted for publication;
• the date of the final acceptance decision or LoA issuance, as appropriate; and
• the name and authorized role of the person issuing the letter.

The LoA must not contain an unconfirmed publication date, volume, issue, page range, or DOI. Such details may be included only when they have been formally determined and verified by the journal.

LoA and Publication Status

An LoA confirms the final acceptance of a manuscript. It does not certify that the article has already been published, that a DOI has already been registered, or that the article has already been assigned to a specific issue unless those details have been formally confirmed.

After acceptance, the manuscript must still complete the applicable copyediting, production, proofreading, metadata verification, and publication procedures. The article is considered published only when it has actually been made publicly available by the journal.

Responsibility and Recordkeeping

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that every LoA corresponds to a genuine final acceptance decision. A record of the decision and the issued letter should be retained in the journal's official editorial records. The letter must not be issued, backdated, or altered in a manner that misrepresents the manuscript's editorial status.

Requests to correct an LoA must be checked against the accepted manuscript and official editorial record. Any correction must preserve the accuracy and integrity of the document.

↑ Back to Top

14. Post-Acceptance Workflow: Copyediting, Production, and Publication

After a final acceptance decision, the manuscript proceeds to the journal's post-acceptance workflow. An LoA may be issued at this stage in accordance with Section 13. Acceptance and LoA issuance do not mean that the article has already been published.

The post-acceptance workflow is intended to protect the accuracy, readability, accessibility, and integrity of the published scholarly record. Production corrections must not be used to make undisclosed substantive changes to the accepted research.

↑ Back to Top

15. Confidentiality, Reviewer Conduct, and AI Use

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and constitute unpublished scholarly work. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about a submission, its contents, review reports, author responses, or editorial status to unauthorized persons.

Reviewers must:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively;
• support substantive criticism with clear reasoning and relevant evidence;
• avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and inappropriate language;
• not use unpublished ideas, data, arguments, or other information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage;
• not distribute or share manuscripts without authorization;
• not contact authors directly about a manuscript unless authorized by the editorial team;
• notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, serious ethical concerns, or other potential misconduct; and
• comply with the journal's policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and artificial intelligence.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly integrity of their reports. The journal's broader requirements concerning AI use in research and publication are set out in the AI Tools Usage Policy.

↑ Back to Top

16. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting or undertaking a review assignment.

Conflicts may arise from financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships involving the authors, institutions, research, or subject matter of the manuscript.

A reviewer must decline an assignment when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the objectivity or fairness of the review. If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor and follow the editor's instructions.

Editors must consider conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers and avoid assignments that could undermine the independence or impartiality of the process.

↑ Back to Top

17. Editorial Independence and Impartiality

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance to SASI's Focus and Scope, analytical soundness, ethical compliance, and available reviewer assessments.

Manuscripts must be evaluated without discrimination based on authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, religious belief, political view, institutional affiliation, or other non-scholarly considerations.

Where a manuscript is submitted by an editor or another person with a role in the journal, the submission must be handled independently. The person concerned must not improperly influence reviewer selection, the review process, or the editorial decision. An alternative qualified editor should be assigned where necessary.

The editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision and for ensuring that any LoA reflects a genuine, recorded acceptance decision.

↑ Back to Top

18. Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

SASI conducts its peer review process with reference to recognized publication ethics principles and the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare competing interests, assess manuscripts within their competence, provide fair and constructive feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. Editors are responsible for managing the process fairly and making decisions based on scholarly merit and journal policy.

Concerns about research or publication misconduct, corrections, retractions, conflicts of interest, or other publication ethics matters are handled under the journal's applicable policies.

↑ Back to Top

19. Transparency and Recordkeeping

This policy is publicly available to authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties. The editorial team is responsible for applying it consistently and maintaining appropriate records of editorial decisions, reviewer assignments, review reports, author responses, revisions, and relevant communications in OJS or the journal's official records.

Records should be sufficiently complete to explain the path from submission to the final editorial decision. Records of acceptance and issued LoAs should be handled in accordance with confidentiality, privacy, and applicable institutional requirements.

The journal may review and update this policy when its editorial procedures or publication ethics requirements change. Revisions must be communicated transparently and applied consistently to the relevant manuscripts.

By submitting a manuscript to SASI, authors acknowledge that their submissions are subject to editorial screening, peer review, publication ethics policies, and the journal's final editorial decision-making process.

↑ Back to Top

20. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

The Peer Review Process operates together with SASI's other editorial and publication ethics policies, including:

• Publication Ethics Policy;
• Plagiarism Policy;
• AI Tools Usage Policy; and
• Retraction, Withdrawal, & Correction (R-W-C) Policy.

Issues involving plagiarism, research misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, post-publication concerns, corrections, retractions, or other publication ethics matters are handled in accordance with the applicable journal policies.

↑ Back to Top