Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Opinio Doctorum undergo a rigorous double blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This policy ensures an objective, fair, independent, and unbiased evaluation of scholarly work.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal must fall within the journal's focus and scope, including State Institutions, Constitution and Constitutionalism, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Local Government Law.

The official language of the journal is English. Accepted articles will be published online after successfully completing the editorial and peer review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the aims and scope of Opinio Doctorum;

  • Complies with the journal's Author Guidelines and formatting requirements;

  • Demonstrates sufficient originality, academic quality, and legal significance;

  • Contains all required metadata and supporting documents.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer review stage.

Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin Similarity Check and editorial assessment where necessary.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, self plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected immediately.

Where the similarity report indicates only minor overlap or citation related issues, authors may be invited to revise the manuscript before further editorial consideration.

Double Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty;

  • Relevance to the journal's scope;

  • Theoretical and legal significance;

  • Methodological rigor;

  • Quality of constitutional or administrative legal analysis;

  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript;

  • Contribution to legal scholarship, judicial development, and public policy;

  • Quality and adequacy of references.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations for both the authors and the editors.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor in Chief or the assigned Handling Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject Submission

The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editorial Board.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit:

  • A revised manuscript; and

  • A detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment,

within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Failure to submit revisions within the allotted period may result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission.

Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds through the following production stages:

  • Copyediting;

  • Language editing (where applicable);

  • Proofreading;

  • Layout editing;

  • Final author approval.

Accepted articles are published through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform and made available online in the designated issue of Opinio Doctorum.

Peer Review Workflow

The peer review process in Opinio Doctorum follows the sequence below:

  1. Manuscript submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS);

  2. Initial editorial screening;

  3. Scope and format assessment;

  4. Plagiarism screening using Turnitin;

  5. Assignment to the Handling Editor;

  6. Double blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers;

  7. Reviewers submit recommendations to the editor;

  8. Editorial decision:

    • Accept;

    • Minor Revision;

    • Major Revision;

    • Reject;

  9. Author revision (if required);

  10. Final editorial evaluation;

  11. Copyediting;

  12. Proofreading;

  13. Layout editing;

  14. Author approval of the final proof;

  15. Online publication.

All stages of submission, review, revision, and publication are conducted electronically through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) to ensure transparency, accountability, efficiency, and integrity throughout the publication process.

The Editorial Board adheres to the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly excellence throughout the peer review process.