Peer Reviewer Process
All manuscripts submitted to Ephemeris Delicata Concordia (EDC) must be submitted through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS) and prepared in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines and official manuscript template.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editorial Office. During this stage, the editorial team evaluates:
- Completeness of the submission files and metadata;
- Compliance with the journal's formatting requirements and manuscript template;
- Suitability with the journal's focus and scope;
- Originality through plagiarism screening using similarity detection software;
- Compliance with publication ethics and editorial policies.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before entering the peer review process or may be declined if they fall outside the journal's scope.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening proceed to a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure impartiality, confidentiality, and objective evaluation.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the subject matter. When necessary, the Editor may appoint additional reviewers to obtain further expert opinions.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:
- Originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution to legal studies;
- Relevance to the aims and scope of Ephemeris Delicata Concordia (EDC);
- Soundness of the theoretical framework, legal reasoning, research methodology, and analytical approach;
- Quality, clarity, coherence, and logical organization of the manuscript;
- Accuracy and adequacy of references and supporting legal authorities;
- Significance of the findings for legal scholarship, policy, or practice.
Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's evaluation, one of the following editorial decisions will be issued:
- Accept
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions Required
- Reject
Authors receiving a revision decision are required to submit:
- A revised manuscript incorporating all requested changes; and
- A detailed Response to Reviewers explaining, point by point, how each reviewer comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned explanation where recommendations are not adopted.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.
The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts based on reviewers' recommendations, editorial assessment, and compliance with the journal's publication standards.
Throughout the review process, the Editorial Board is committed to maintaining fairness, confidentiality, transparency, academic integrity, and timely communication. Authors may monitor the progress of their submissions through the OJS platform or contact the Editorial Office for clarification regarding the status of their manuscripts.
