Peer Review Policy

Systemia: Journal of Law, Technology and Governance applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic relevance, and integrity of published research. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Following submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Managing Editor or designated Handling Editor for further editorial assessment. Each research article that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

All manuscripts undergo full peer review before publication. The journal only publishes manuscripts that have received appropriate scholarly evaluation and have been approved for publication through the editorial decision-making process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first subject to an initial technical and editorial screening. The editorial team assesses whether the submission:

• falls within the scope of Systemia: Journal of Law, Technology and Governance;
• meets the journal's basic manuscript and formatting requirements;
• demonstrates sufficient academic quality and scholarly relevance;
• complies with the journal's publication ethics and research integrity requirements; and
• is suitable for further peer review.

The journal may conduct an originality or similarity assessment, including the use of appropriate plagiarism-detection software, before the manuscript is sent to external reviewers.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to satisfy essential submission requirements, or do not meet the minimum standards for scholarly consideration may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Assignment to an Editor

If a manuscript passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns it to an appropriate Handling Editor based on the subject matter and the editor's area of expertise.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the peer-review process, identifying suitable reviewers, evaluating reviewer reports, and making a recommendation regarding the editorial decision.

3. Selection of Reviewers

The Handling Editor normally invites at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate expertise in the subject matter, methodology, or theoretical framework of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and independence from the authors. Individuals with a potential conflict of interest should not participate in the review process.

Because peer review is an academic service performed voluntarily by scholars, the review process may require additional time. The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to secure timely reviews and may invite additional reviewers when necessary.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Systemia: Journal of Law, Technology and Governance uses a double-blind peer-review model. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process, to the extent reasonably practicable.

Authors should therefore ensure that the manuscript does not contain unnecessary information that directly identifies them. Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not attempt to identify the authors.

The double-blind review process is intended to reduce potential bias and support objective, independent, and academically rigorous evaluation.

5. Review Process

The peer-review process generally follows the sequence below:

1. Manuscript Submission: The author submits the manuscript through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS).
2. Technical and Editorial Screening: The editorial team checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal's scope, formatting, submission requirements, and publication-ethics standards.
3. Originality Check: The manuscript may be screened using plagiarism or similarity-detection software before external review.
4. Editor Assignment: A suitable Handling Editor is assigned to manage the review process.
5. Reviewer Selection: The Handling Editor invites at least two qualified and independent reviewers.
6. Peer Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, theoretical or conceptual contribution, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, use of evidence, clarity of argument, and relevance to the journal's scope.
7. Editorial Decision: The Handling Editor evaluates the reviewer reports and makes an editorial recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.
8. Revision: Where revisions are required, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period.
9. Further Review: A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to new reviewers where the editor considers further evaluation necessary.
10. Final Decision: Following completion of the review and revision process, the editor determines whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected.
11. Copyediting and Proofreading: Accepted manuscripts undergo the journal's editorial preparation process before publication.
12. Galley Proof and Publication: The final version is prepared for publication, and the article is published in the journal's designated issue or online publication system.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following consideration of the reviewer reports and the editor's independent academic assessment, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

1. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision, subject only to routine editorial or production processes.
2. Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or improvements. The author must address the specified revisions within the period established by the editor.
3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to its argument, analysis, methodology, structure, evidence, or presentation. The revised manuscript may be subject to further peer review.
4. Resubmit for Further Review: The manuscript requires extensive revision and cannot be accepted in its current form, but the journal considers that a substantially revised version may be reconsidered through another round of evaluation. This decision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.
5. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication and will not be accepted in its current form. A rejected manuscript will normally not be reconsidered merely on the basis of routine revision.

7. Revision and Author Response

When revisions are requested, authors must submit both a revised manuscript and a clear response to the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Authors should indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed and identify the location of corresponding changes in the revised manuscript. Where an author disagrees with a reviewer recommendation, the author should provide a clear and academically reasoned explanation.

Failure to provide an adequate revision within the specified period may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn from the review process.

8. Reviewer Reports and Editorial Judgment

Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the editorial decision-making process but do not automatically determine the final outcome. The editor retains independent responsibility for evaluating the manuscript and may request additional reviews where the reviewer reports are inconsistent, insufficient, or require further expert assessment.

The editor may also reject a manuscript despite positive reviewer comments where significant concerns remain regarding the manuscript's scope, originality, research integrity, legal or ethical issues, or overall scholarly contribution.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and information obtained during the review process as confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared with third parties, used for personal or professional advantage, or uploaded to Generative AI systems or other external platforms in a manner that could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and professionally expressed comments. They should disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review where they cannot provide an independent assessment.

10. Estimated Review Period

The duration of the peer-review process may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the need for additional reviewers, and the extent of revisions required.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to process submissions efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer-review process. Authors may monitor the status of their manuscripts through the journal's OJS platform.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant procedural error or a serious misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal must provide specific grounds and should address the relevant editorial or review concerns. Appeals will be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and may be referred to an independent editor or additional expert where appropriate.

Appeals should not be used simply to dispute a scholarly judgment with which the author disagrees. The editorial decision following an appeal will normally be final.

12. Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

Systemia: Journal of Law, Technology and Governance is committed to maintaining an independent, fair, confidential, and transparent peer-review process. The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript, regardless of the author's academic position, institutional affiliation, or previous publication record.

Editorial and peer-review decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, integrity, and contribution of the submitted manuscript. The journal reserves the right to modify the review process where necessary to protect the integrity of scholarly communication and comply with applicable publication-ethics standards.