Locke Science Publisher
All journals published by Locke Science Publisher use a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, relevance, and integrity of published work. In single-blind review, reviewers remain anonymous to authors, while authors’ identities are visible to reviewers. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution to the field.
The stages below describe the standard editorial workflow used across all Locke Science Publisher journals.
1. Submission and receipt
Authors submit manuscripts by email to the relevant journal editorial office (the journal website lists the correct submission email). Submissions should follow the journal’s Guide for Authors and any submission checklist provided.
Only original work that is not previously published and not under review elsewhere will be considered. If any part of the work has been shared previously (e.g., as a preprint, conference paper, or technical report), authors must disclose this at submission and explain what is new.
2. Initial screening (typically within 7 days)
The editorial office (usually the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor) conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review. This screening typically checks:
fit with the journal’s aims and scope
completeness and basic presentation (title page, abstract, references, figures/tables, required statements)
baseline language clarity (English-language manuscripts)
apparent originality and compliance with publication ethics and licensing policies
any obvious integrity concerns (e.g., duplicate submission signals, missing disclosures, suspicious content)
Possible outcomes at this stage:
desk rejection (out of scope or clearly unsuitable)
return to authors for technical corrections before review
progression to peer review
3. Handling editor assignment
Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a handling editor (Editor-in-Chief and/or an Associate Editor or editorial board member), selected based on topic expertise and workload. The handling editor manages the review process and ensures fair, timely handling.
4. Reviewer selection and invitations
The handling editor invites at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject knowledge.
Reviewers are selected to ensure:
appropriate expertise in the manuscript topic and methods
independence and balanced perspectives
avoidance of conflicts of interest
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
5. Single-blind peer review (commonly up to 10 weeks, depending on field and reviewer availability)
Reviewers provide written, constructive reports. They typically evaluate:
originality and contribution to the field
clarity and significance of the research question or design/problem statement
theoretical and methodological rigor and transparency
strength and appropriateness of evidence (data, cases, documentation, analysis)
coherence of structure and quality of writing
appropriateness and completeness of references
quality, integrity, and usefulness of figures/tables/visual documentation
validity of conclusions and practical or scholarly implications
Reviewers submit a recommendation, usually one of:
accept
minor revisions
major revisions
reject
Reviews should be respectful, specific, and aimed at helping authors improve the work.
6. Editorial evaluation and decision
The handling editor considers the reviewer reports and may consult additional editors or invite additional review when needed (for example, when reports conflict or specialized expertise is required). The editor then issues a decision consistent with the journal’s standards and ethics policies.
Authors receive:
the editorial decision
an editorial summary of key points (where applicable)
anonymized reviewer reports
clear revision instructions (if revisions are requested)
7. Revisions and resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors must:
submit a revised manuscript addressing reviewer/editor feedback
provide a response document explaining how each point was handled
justify respectfully where suggestions were not adopted
Handling of revisions:
minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor alone
major revisions are often returned to one or more original reviewers
additional revision rounds may be requested when necessary, though the journal aims to limit cycles while maintaining standards
8. Final acceptance
A manuscript is formally accepted once it meets the journal’s standards for scholarly quality, clarity, completeness, and ethical compliance.
9. Production: language editing, formatting, and metadata
After acceptance, Locke Science Publisher prepares the article for publication. This typically includes:
small language edits for clarity, consistency, and readability (non-substantive)
formatting in the journal template
standardizing headings, references, tables, figure captions, and numbering
confirming publication metadata (author names, affiliations, ORCID if provided, funding acknowledgements, competing interests statements)
Authors remain responsible for the accuracy of content, citations, and claims.
10. Proofs
The corresponding author receives PDF proofs to check:
typographical or production errors
placement and quality of figures/tables
accuracy of author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements
minor clarifications
Substantive changes at proof stage are discouraged and may require editorial approval. Proofs are typically requested back within 48 hours to avoid publication delays.
11. Publication, open access, and licensing
All Locke Science Publisher journals operate under a diamond open access model:
no subscription fees for readers
no article processing charges (APCs) for authors
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Authors retain copyright and grant the publisher a non-exclusive license to publish, distribute, and archive the work.
Articles are published online and assigned to a volume/issue according to the journal’s publication schedule.
12. Ethical oversight, corrections, and record integrity
Locke Science Publisher maintains the integrity of the scholarly record and addresses concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, falsification, unethical research practice, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other misconduct.
When needed, the journal may issue:
a correction or erratum
an expression of concern
a retraction (when findings cannot be relied upon)
13. Complaints and appeals
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe a decision involved a factual misunderstanding or procedural error. Complaints about peer review conduct or editorial process may also be submitted to the editorial office. All appeals and complaints are handled fairly and confidentially.
14. Contact
For questions about a specific submission, contact the relevant journal editorial office (listed on the journal website). For general publishing inquiries, contact: CustomerCare@LockeScience.press