Author's Instructions

All articles submitted to the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies must adhere to the journal's topic and scope, as well as the author's criteria.

Manuscripts must address scientific merit or innovation relevant to the emphasis and scope.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject pieces that do not adhere to the topic or the Guidelines for Authors.

All manuscripts must be free of plagiarism. To check for resemblance, all authors are advised to utilize plagiarism detection software.  software is used by editors to check the plagiarism detection of papers in this publication.

The research article submitted to the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies will be double-blind peer-reviewed.

Declaration of Peer Review is a rigorous and honest, anonymous peer examination of each key paper by two or more independent referees that ensures quality.

The reviewers provide scientifically useful comments that improve the manuscript's substance.

The Editor will make the ultimate decision on article approval on behalf of the Editorial Board based on the reviewers' remarks.

The sequence of acceptable dates, the geographical distribution of authors, and a theme issue will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief when publishing accepted papers, including the sequence of published articles.

Review Outcomes: The Editor will make a final publication decision based on comments from the peer review process.

The evaluation procedure will take between 4 and 12 weeks. Decision categories are:

Accepted: A paper with outstanding feedback from the reviewers will be published in its present form.

Accept with Revisions: Manuscripts that receive an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies if minor/major changes are made. An editor will evaluate revisions to verify that any required modifications are made before publication. Accepted papers will be published in their current form, with no additional changes necessary.

Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but it may be accepted with major revisions. It will, however, need a second round of assessment.

Reject: Manuscripts that are rejected will not be published, and authors will not be able to resubmit a revised version of the paper to the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies.

Following evaluation, all pertinent material is forwarded to the author. The author completes the piece and delivers it to the editors' office in one or two weeks. If the piece is not returned within this time frame (or the editorial board is not informed of any delays), the article is denied.


LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies is devoted to the academic community and the general public by assuring publishing ethics and article quality.

Plagiarism is strictly prohibited, and manuscripts discovered to be plagiarised will be withdrawn from the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies and will not be published. Thus, all received papers are checked with the "Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Software Program" ( for plagiarism before the review process. While signing the publication agreement, the author(s) must guarantee that the article and accompanying materials are original and do not violate anyone's copyright. The writers must guarantee that there was unanimous agreement among all authors and that it had not previously been submitted or published.  

In respect of the COPE's Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers (for more information see COPE), the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies' publication ethics contain the most significant ethical norms for all parties involved, i.e., authors, editors, and peer reviewers. Any prospective conflicts of interest must be avoided by the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies, and any deviations must be disclosed immediately to the editor.

Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the LSAF Journal of Empirical Studies, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2018). As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on



  • All submitted publications are subjected to a rigorous blind peer-review procedure by at least two international experts on the topic.
  • The review considers relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  • Acceptance with adjustments and rejection are all possible outcomes.
  • If writers are asked to alter and resubmit their contributions, there is no guarantee that they will be accepted.Furthermore, rejected articles will not be re-evaluated.
  • The paper's approval is controlled by the current legal standards for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.


  • We are following an online Submission process for every Paper.
  • Authors must confirm that their submissions are their original work that has never been published before.
  • Authors must participate in the peer review process.
  • Each of the authors named in the paper must have contributed significantly to the study.
  • The authors must state that all of the information in the article is truthful and correct.
  • Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the Editors.
  • The authors must identify all sources used in the development of the work.
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any errors in their published work.


  • We are following an online review process every reviewer has to review the assigned article by Reviewers can add extra comments with an attachment.
  • All details about articles should be kept secret and treated as privileged information by reviewers.
  • Reviews should be neutral and free of personal insults to the author.
  • Reviewers should explain their opinions clearly and provide evidence to back them up.
  • Reviewers should look for relevant published work that the authors haven't included.
  • Reviewers should alert the Editor in Chief to any significant resemblance or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published paper about which they are personally aware.
  • Reviewers should avoid reviewing submissions in which they have a competing, collaborating, or other relationship or connection with any of the authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the articles.


  • Editors have complete authority over whether an article is published or denied.
  • Editors are responsible for the publication's content and overall quality.
  • When attempting to market a publication, editors must continually consider the expectations of the writers and readers, ensuring that the articles are of high quality and that the academic record is correct.
  • When necessary, editors should issue incorrect pages or make adjustments, and they should make decisions only based on the articles' significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Editors should have a complete awareness of a study's financing sources.
  • Editors should not reject their own or previous editors' judgments unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
  • Editors should keep reviewers' names private.
  • Editors should ensure that each study they publish adheres to universally recognized ethical standards.
  • Editors should take action if they suspect wrongdoing in a work, whether published or unpublished and make all reasonable steps to remedy the situation.
  • Editors should not reject items based on suspicions; instead, proof of wrongdoing should be supplied.
  • There should be no conflicts of interest among staff, authors, reviewers, or editors.


All submissions must follow the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Norms for Journal Editors, which encourages following research and publication ethical principles (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2018)


Authors must explicitly identify their contribution to the work in the cover letter.

Only people who match the following requirements for authorship should be named as authors in the paper because they must be able to accept public accountability for the content:

  • contributed significantly to the study's conceptualization, design, implementation, data collecting, or analysis/interpretation.
  • wrote the manuscript or critically edited it for essential intellectual content.
  • have seen and approved the final form of the manuscript, and have agreed to its submission.

All individuals who contribute significantly to the work reported in the manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship (for example, technical assistance, writing and editing assistance, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained.

Before submitting the manuscript for publication, the corresponding author should check that the author list includes all permissible co-authors (as specified above) and no inappropriate co-authors and that all co-authors have reviewed and accepted the final version of the work.