Peer Review Policy: Leiden Academic Press

Leiden Academic Press is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and academic excellence. All research articles published by our journals undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the validity, quality, and impact of the work.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, every manuscript is screened by the Managing Editor or a member of the Editorial Board. This stage evaluates:

• Scope Alignment: Does the research fit within the journal's defined aims?

• Technical Compliance: Does the manuscript follow formatting, ethical, and language guidelines?

• Originality Check: All submissions are screened via iThenticate/Crossref to ensure plagiarism-free content.

Manuscripts that fail this initial check are returned to authors immediately (Desk Rejection).

2. Double-Blind Review Process

Leiden Academic Press employs a double-blind system to ensure impartial evaluation:

• The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

• The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

A minimum of two independent subject matter experts are assigned to each paper. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history, and lack of any conflict of interest.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following:

• Originality: Does the work provide a new contribution to the field?

• Methodological Rigor: Is the experimental design or theoretical framework sound?

• Clarity: Is the paper well-organized and the language accessible?

• Ethics: Are there any concerns regarding data integrity or human/animal subjects?

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewer reports, the Handling Editor makes one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept: The paper is ready for publication as-is.

2. Minor Revision: The paper requires small adjustments (clarification, formatting).

3. Major Revision: Significant changes to data analysis or theory are required before reconsidering.

4. Reject: The work is fundamentally flawed or does not meet the journal's standards.

Note: In cases where reviewers provide conflicting reports, a third reviewer (adjudicator) is often consulted to ensure a fair outcome.

5. Revision & Re-submission

Authors are typically given 2–4 weeks for minor revisions and 6–8 weeks for major revisions. The revised manuscript is often sent back to the original reviewers to confirm that their concerns have been addressed.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document.

• Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.

• Disclosure: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor.