Peer Review Process

The review model

All Calm Publika journals use double-blind peer review. Reviewers do not see the authors' names, affiliations or acknowledgements, and authors are never told who reviewed their work. The aim is that an argument is judged on its merits rather than on the reputation, institution, gender or nationality of the person making it.

Anonymity depends on both sides. Authors prepare an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page (see each journal's Author Guidelines). Editors check the anonymised file before it is sent out, and reviewers must not try to find out who the authors are. If a reviewer believes they have recognised the author, they tell the editor and the editor decides whether the review can stand.

Books and proceedings follow their own arrangements, described in the summary policy. This page is about journal articles.

The workflow at a glance

1. Submission. The author sends an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page.
2. Initial screening by the handling editor (first decision within 14 days): the manuscript is sent to review, returned to be corrected, or declined with reasons.
3. Double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers.
4. The editor's decision (within 60 days of submission for papers that are reviewed): accept, minor revisions, major revisions or decline.
5. After acceptance: copyediting, galley proof checked by the author, then online publication (within 30 days of acceptance).
6. Revisions: after minor revisions the editor checks the revision and accepts it if satisfied; after major revisions the revision goes back to reviewers and to a new decision (step 4).

Step 2: initial screening

Within a short time of submission, the handling editor checks whether the manuscript can go to review at all. This is not a verdict on quality. It is a check of five things:

1. Scope. Does it fit the journal's aims and scope, and does it have a substantial focus on the journal's field?
2. Originality. Has it been screened with similarity-checking software and, where the result raises a question, has the editor looked at the overlap? See the Originality policy.
3. Contribution. Does it make an identifiable contribution, rather than only describing legislation, cases or events?
4. Method and presentation. Is the method stated, is the language clear enough to review, and does the manuscript follow the Author Guidelines, including anonymisation?
5. Ethics. Does it comply with the rules on authorship, conflicts of interest and the use of artificial intelligence?

The editor then does one of three things: sends the manuscript to review, returns it to the author to fix a correctable problem (for example a file that still shows the author's name), or declines it without review and gives reasons. The target for this first decision is 14 days.

Step 3: reviewers

How reviewers are chosen

Each manuscript goes to at least two independent reviewers. The handling editor chooses them for subject expertise and, where the manuscript depends on it, for knowledge of the jurisdiction, method or legal tradition. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors: no shared institution in recent years, no recent collaboration or co-authorship, no close personal or financial relationship, and no stake in the outcome. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor is not bound by the suggestions and does not use reviewers an author suggests exclusively.

What a reviewer is asked to do

• Accept an invitation only if they have the expertise and the time, and decline promptly otherwise, ideally with the names of possible alternatives.
• Assess the originality, argument, method, use of sources and presentation, and give reasons the author can act on. A recommendation is not enough on its own.
• Be courteous and specific, criticise the work rather than the person, and separate points the author must address from points that are optional.
• Return the review within the period stated in the invitation, and tell the editor early if they need more time.
• Declare any conflict of interest, and withdraw if one appears during the review.

Confidentiality and conduct

A manuscript under review is confidential. Reviewers do not share it, discuss it with colleagues, use its ideas for their own work, or contact the authors. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative AI tool, because that discloses confidential material to a third party; the review must reflect the reviewer's own judgement. A reviewer who wants to ask a colleague for help must first ask the editor. See the Generative AI policy.

Reviewers who miss deadlines repeatedly, write reviews that are abusive or unsupported, or breach confidentiality are not invited again, and serious breaches are handled under the Publication Ethics policy.

Step 4: the editor decides

Reviewers advise; the handling editor decides. The editor reads the reviews and the manuscript, weighs the recommendations, and is not required to follow a majority. Where the reviews disagree sharply, or a review is thin or unreliable, the editor may seek an additional reviewer before deciding. The decision letter states the decision, gives the reviewers' comments (anonymously), and, where the editor departs from the reviewers' advice, explains why.

Editors and conflicts

An editor does not handle a manuscript if they are an author of it, work at the same institution as an author, have collaborated closely with an author, or have any other conflict. A manuscript submitted by an editor, an editorial board member or a member of the publisher's staff is handled by an independent editor, who has access to the review, and the conflicted person has no access to it. Editorial decisions are never influenced by whether an author can or cannot pay, or by commercial considerations.

The four decisions

Accept

The manuscript is accepted as it stands, or with editorial corrections that do not need further review. It moves to copyediting and production.

Minor revisions

The manuscript is acceptable in principle, and the changes asked for are small. The author revises and sends a response letter. The handling editor checks the revision and normally decides without sending it back to the reviewers.

Major revisions

The manuscript has promise, but substantial changes are needed to the argument, the method or the use of sources. The author revises and sends a response letter. The revision normally goes back to the original reviewers, and a new decision follows. Acceptance is not guaranteed.

Decline

The manuscript cannot be accepted, and the reasons are given. A declined manuscript may be submitted again only as a substantially new piece of work, and the editor will say whether that would be welcome.

Revising a manuscript

When revisions are requested, the decision letter gives a deadline. An author who needs more time should ask before the deadline, and the editor will normally agree where the reason is genuine.

The author uploads the revised manuscript together with a response letter that answers every comment, point by point, stating what was changed and where (page or paragraph), or why the author respectfully disagrees. Changes should be easy to find, for example highlighted in the revised file. Authors may not add substantial new material or change the authorship list without telling the editor first.

Revised manuscripts remain anonymised. A manuscript that goes through major revisions can go through more than one round; the editor will tell the author if a further round is needed.

After acceptance

An accepted manuscript is copyedited for language and consistency, typeset, and sent to the corresponding author as a galley proof. At proof stage authors should correct only errors introduced in production, such as typesetting or formatting mistakes; substantive changes are not allowed after acceptance unless the editor agrees and the change is recorded as a correction. The article is then published online, open access, and receives its permanent identifier (DOI) once the journal's DOI registration is in place.

Timelines

The journals aim to meet the following targets. They are targets, not guarantees, because review depends on busy volunteers, but authors are told when a manuscript enters review and are kept informed if the schedule slips.

Each journal's homepage shows these figures and replaces them with measured medians once enough submissions have been processed.

Following your submission

Authors can follow a submission in the journal's submission dashboard, and also in Calm Publika Hub, where they sign in with the email address of their journal account. Decisions and requests for revision always reach authors by email and in the dashboard as well.

An author who disagrees with a decision can ask for it to be looked at again. The grounds and the process are in the Complaints and Appeals policy.