Peer Review Process

1) Overview

All manuscripts submitted to HERMENEUTIKA undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review managed on the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The journal adheres to recognized publication ethics (COPE-aligned) standards.

2) Roles

  • Editor-in-Chief / Managing Editor: Oversees policy, assigns handling editors, makes final decisions.

  • Handling Editor: Coordinates review, communicates with authors/reviewers, evaluates revisions.

  • Peer Reviewers (minimum two): Provide objective, scholarly evaluations under double-blind conditions.

  • Authors: Prepare manuscripts per Author Guidelines; respond to reviews and revision requests in a timely, scholarly manner.

3) Workflow

Step A — Submission & Initial Screening

  1. Online submission (OJS).

  2. Desk checks by editorial staff for: scope/fit, originality, structure, references, language clarity, and compliance with Author Guidelines.

  3. Similarity screening using plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts with substantial overlap or unethical practices are rejected at this stage.

Step B — Assignment & Double-Blind Review

  1. The Editor assigns at least two experts as reviewers. Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout.

  2. Reviewers assess: contribution/originality, theoretical and methodological rigor, legal reasoning and hermeneutic interpretation, structure, clarity, ethical compliance, and referencing.

Step C — Editorial Decision (Round 1)

  1. The Handling Editor synthesizes reviewer reports and issues one of four decisions:

    • Accept

    • Minor Revisions

    • Major Revisions

    • Reject

Step D — Revision Cycles

  1. Author revision: Authors submit a revised manuscript plus a point-by-point response addressing each reviewer/editor comment.

  2. Re-review: Revised manuscripts with substantial changes may be returned to original or new reviewers.

  3. Subsequent decisions follow the same four categories until the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Step E — Finalization

  1. Acceptance & technical edit: Copyediting, layout, metadata (including Crossref DOI assignment), and final proofs.

  2. Author proof approval and publication in the scheduled February or August issue (continuous online first may be used when applicable).

4) Reviewer Guidance & Ethics

  • Reviews must be objective, confidential, and constructive, with clear citations when requesting changes.

  • Competing interests (financial, academic, or personal) must be declared to the editor; conflicted reviewers will be replaced.

  • The journal follows COPE principles for alleged misconduct, corrections, and retractions. 

5) Appeals & Complaints

  • Authors may appeal decisions by sending a reasoned letter to the Editor-in-Chief. An independent editorial assessment (and, if needed, an additional review) will be arranged.

  • Ethical complaints are handled per COPE flowcharts and journal policy.

6) Data, Transparency, and Research Integrity

  • Authors should retain data/notes sufficient to permit verification. Where legally and ethically possible, supporting materials (datasets, instruments, legal documents/cases) are encouraged to be shared or clearly cited.

  • Studies involving human subjects, vulnerable populations, or sensitive legal cases must state ethical approvals and confidentiality safeguards.

7) Typical Timeframes (targets, not guarantees)

  • Desk screening: ~1–2 weeks

  • External review: ~3–6 weeks

  • Revision windows: Minor 1–3 weeks; Major 3–6 weeks
    (Actual duration may vary by manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.)