Peer Review Policy

SASI applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript submitted to the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, publication ethics policies, and scholarly standards in the field of legal scholarship.

Type of Peer Review

SASI applies a double-anonymous peer review process. In this process, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts for peer review without information that directly reveals their identity where such information is not required for the editorial submission process.

Peer review is conducted by independent reviewers who have relevant academic expertise and experience in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their field of specialization, academic competence, scholarly experience, publication or research experience, and, where applicable, prior experience in peer review.

Peer Review Process and Stages

The peer review process at SASI consists of the following stages:

  1. Submission: The manuscript is submitted through the journal's online submission system and must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
  2. Initial Editorial Screening: The manuscript is reviewed by the Managing Editor and/or editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's Focus and Scope, manuscript requirements, scholarly standards, and basic publication ethics requirements. This stage is normally completed within two weeks.
  3. Similarity Check: Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked using iThenticate to identify possible plagiarism, excessive textual overlap, redundant publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.
  4. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the editorial and similarity screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
  5. Double-Anonymous Peer Review: Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript without knowing the identity of the authors, while their identities remain confidential to the authors.
  6. Editorial Evaluation: The editorial team evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations together with the manuscript's quality, originality, relevance, methodological or analytical soundness, ethical compliance, and contribution to legal scholarship.
  7. Revision: Where revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions within the specified timeframe.
  8. Reassessment: A revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor and/or returned to reviewers when necessary, depending on the extent and nature of the required revisions.
  9. Final Editorial Decision: The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board based on the reviewers' assessments and the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is first screened by the Managing Editor and/or editorial team. The screening determines whether the manuscript:

  1. fits the Focus and Scope of SASI;
  2. follows the journal's 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 and declarations, where applicable;
  6. complies with the journal's publication ethics requirements;
  7. is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
  8. does not contain apparent serious plagiarism, research misconduct, or other publication malpractice.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected before external peer review.

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within two weeks after submission.

Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the 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 editorial team considers the nature, location, and source of the similarity, citation practices, quotations, legitimate overlap, previous publications, and whether the identified similarity indicates plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other publication misconduct.

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

Assignment and Number of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening and similarity check are assigned to qualified reviewers based on their academic expertise, field of specialization, research experience, publication experience, and suitability for the subject matter of the manuscript.

Until Volume 32, Issue 3, manuscripts that pass the editorial and similarity screening are sent to two reviewers.

Beginning with Volume 32, Issue 4 (December 2026), SASI will implement a three-reviewer system. Accordingly, manuscripts processed for Volume 32, Issue 4 and subsequent issues will normally be evaluated by three independent reviewers.

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

Reviewers must be able to provide an objective, independent, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript. The editorial team seeks to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.

A reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise, has a conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within the required timeframe should decline the review invitation and notify the editorial team promptly.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. relevance to the Focus and Scope of SASI;
  2. originality and novelty of the manuscript;
  3. significance and contribution to legal scholarship;
  4. clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, or legal issues;
  5. appropriateness and adequacy of the research method or legal analysis;
  6. quality, depth, accuracy, and coherence of the discussion;
  7. accuracy and relevance of legal sources, literature, authorities, and citations;
  8. strength and consistency of the legal argument and analysis;
  9. clarity, organization, language, and presentation;
  10. ethical compliance and appropriate acknowledgment of sources;
  11. overall suitability for publication in SASI.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, objective, evidence-based, and constructive comments. Their comments should assist the editorial team in making an informed editorial decision and help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is three weeks after the reviewer accepts the review invitation.

The three-week review period applies to each reviewer assigned to the manuscript. The actual duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, the need to appoint replacement reviewers, or other circumstances affecting the peer review process.

If a reviewer requires additional time, the reviewer should inform the editorial team as soon as possible. The editorial team may extend the review period or appoint another qualified reviewer when necessary.

Where additional time is required, the editorial team may inform the author through the journal's online system or official communication channel.

Reviewers' Assessment and Recommendations

SASI provides reviewers with a structured review form to promote consistency in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, clarity of presentation, academic or legal contribution, methodological or analytical soundness, relevance, quality of discussion, and other criteria established by the journal.

Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are important considerations in the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final decision.

Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's editorial policies.

SASI applies four principal editorial decisions:

  1. Accepted, as it is: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision.
  2. Accepted by Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited revisions or corrections. Authors are required to revise the manuscript within the stipulated timeframe.
  3. Accepted by Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revision. Authors are required to revise the manuscript within the stipulated timeframe, and the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor and/or reviewers before a final acceptance decision.
  4. Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Reasons may include being outside the journal's Focus and Scope, insufficient originality or scholarly contribution, major methodological or analytical problems, lack of clarity, serious ethical concerns, or failure to meet the journal's publication standards.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute an automatic acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions.

Authors are expected to address the reviewers' substantive comments and, where appropriate, provide a response explaining how the comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further assessment.

The extent of reassessment depends on the nature and extent of the required revisions. A major revision does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, without prior communication with the editorial team, may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from the editorial process.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

All manuscripts submitted to SASI are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to unauthorized persons.

Reviewers must conduct their assessments objectively, fairly, and constructively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear arguments supporting their comments and recommendations.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, arguments, or other materials obtained through the peer review process for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage.

Reviewers must not share the manuscript or its contents with other persons without authorization from the editorial team. Reviewers should not contact authors directly concerning the manuscript unless authorized by the journal.

Reviewers should not use artificial intelligence or other automated tools to process confidential manuscript content unless expressly authorized by the journal and consistent with applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

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

Conflicts of interest may be financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or otherwise related to the authors, institutions, research, or subject matter of the manuscript.

A reviewer must decline the review when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the objectivity or fairness of the review.

If a conflict of interest becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor and refrain from further review activities until receiving further instructions.

Editors must also avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose conflicts of interest could compromise the independence or impartiality of the peer review process.

Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

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

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, assess manuscripts objectively, declare competing interests, review manuscripts only within their area of competence, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

The peer review process is intended to support fair, independent, consistent, and scholarly editorial decisions based on the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.

Relationship with Other Journal Policies

The peer review process operates together with SASI's other editorial and publication ethics policies, including the 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.