Lumina Literati Publishing (LLP) Peer Review Process

Editorial Assessment

Assigning an Editorial Board Member: The manuscripts that pass through initial screening are referred to the suitable member of the editorial board on the basis of expertise and experience of the editor in the manuscript’s subject area.

Preliminary Evaluation: Afterward, a preliminary evaluation is conducted by this assigned editor in order to judge whether a manuscript is relevant, distinctive or if it falls within LLP’s scope and standards. This requires reading through thoroughly to catch any immediate flags.

Preliminary Decision: From their first assessment, editors can decide on which scripts should proceed to peer review stage. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this point are rejected with constructive feedback that can help the authors improve their future submission works.

Peer Review

Choosing Reviewers: At least two independent referees considered as appropriate for reviewing such scripts are appointed. The selection process involves several considerations including; areas of specialization, publications done before now, current interest in research as well as neutralities about authors or subject matter involved.

Double Blind Review: To maintain impartiality, LLP employs double-blind reviewers where both parties cannot identify themselves to each other. This eliminates prejudice and ensures that academic values alone determine manuscripts for acceptance.

Invitation for Reviewer: Possible reviewers receive an email invitation containing title of text and its abstracts together with keywords used. Availability confirmation and declaration of conflicts must be made by reviewers before accepting review invitations from editors.

Guidelines for Reviewers: Once a reviewer has accepted an invitation email he/she receives comprehensive guidelines indicating what reviewers should consider when assessing such papers, these guidelines include:

1. Originality and novelty
2. Relevance and significance
3. Methodology
4. Results & Interpretation
5. Presentation & Structure
6. References & Citations

Reviewer Reports

Evaluation Criteria: Based on the provided detailed guidelines, reviewers assess the manuscript and provide qualitative and quantitative assessments of its strengths and weaknesses.

1. Recommendation Categories: Reviewers can either make one of the following recommendations:
2. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without any or minor revisions.
3. Minor Revisions: This paper just requires a few changes to be made so that it can be approved.
4. Major Revisions: This paper requires substantial changes and a re-evaluation before it can be published.
5. Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Detailed Feedback: Reviewers give feedbacks that include specific comments and suggestions about how to improve the manuscripts. They offer this comment constructively with an expectation of quality improvement from authors’ side.

Confidential Comments to the Editor: There are times when reviewers may prefer giving confidential comments to the editor as opposed to making them in front of authors.

Editorial Decision

Synthesis of Reviewer Reports: The reviewer reports are synthesized by the assigned editor. They will look at the merits and demerits stated by reviewers and any other recommendations.

Decision Making: Based on all feedbacks, the editor makes an editorial decision. These decisions may include:

Acceptance: Manuscript is accepted for publication.

Minor Revision: Manuscript needs minor revision. Specific feedback is provided to authors with a timeline for resubmission.

Major Revision: Manuscript needs major revision. Detailed feedback is given to authors with a longer time for submission of the revised manuscript that would undergo another round of review.

Reject: This means that manuscript cannot be published since it lacks certain elements or has not covered a specific topic. It provides detailed comments which help authors to understand why their papers were turned down and improve future submissions.

Author Revisions

Revision Process: If a paper receives either minor or major revisions as its outcome, the author has to revise it as guided by reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Their responses must address each comment explicitly showing how they addressed the issues raised in them.

Resubmission: Such revised manuscripts are being sent back through an online submission system while highlighting changes made in them together with point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments.

Second Round of Review (if applicable)

Review of Revised Manuscript: In cases where major revisions have been recommended for certain papers, revised manuscripts are usually returned to their initial reviewers for further examination. As such, they assess whether these concerns have been adequately addressed by authors and if there is compliance with publication standards in this revised version.

Further Revisions: If additional modifications are suggested by reviewers, this may cause another series of revisions done on it again and again. The process just takes place like clockwork so as not to make it tedious or time-consuming thus causing delays.

Final Decision

• Final Editorial Decision: Once the reviewers have approved the revised manuscript or when changes are minor and satisfactorily addressed, a final decision is made by the editor.
• Acceptance Notification: The authors receive a notification regarding their acceptance of the paper and this message also contains information on subsequent actions to be taken in relation to publication which includes copyright transfer and proofs.
• Rejection Notification: In case the manuscript is rejected at last, there are detailed feedbacks provided to its author explaining why they refused it that could be useful during future submissions.

Production and Publication

Copyediting and Proofreading: This involves ensuring clarity, consistency, and adherence to LLP’s publication standards in accepted papers as they undergo copy-editing stage mainly through proofreading. After this, authors have to approve them before printing can be done.

Online Publication: Finally, LLP posts up-to-date versions of submitted manuscripts on its platform once an article has been finalized. Each piece of work will be assigned with DOI/ISBN number meaning that interested parties can easily find it within relevant databases.

Post-Publication Review: To enhance visibility and impact of published researches, LLP supports post-publications discussions and reviews respectively so as to get what other people thinks about your work. ‘We provide a platform for discussion among readers,’ Larsen said.

Continuous Improvement

Feedback Loop: Through surveys and feedback forms sent out periodically, LLP keeps gathering responses from authors, reviewers and even readers concerning their peer review process so as to improve it more than ever before because it needs critique for growth purposes.

Training and Development: In addition, these people are offered ongoing training opportunities meant for editors/reviewers just to keep them updated with recent developments particularly in relation to peer review as well as publishing standards throughout LP’s various journals.