Before being approved for publishing in the Journal, all submitted materials—manuscripts, cover letters, texts, figures such as charts, tables, and annexures—are thoroughly evaluated (Peer Review - First Screening) by our Chief Editor, Assistant Editor, and Managing Editor. This preliminary evaluation entails examining the reference style, applicability to fundamental science, and fundamental organization, including the abstract, keywords, and introduction. The needs for any additions, edits, or clarifications—if any—are communicated to the authors. Once the authors have made any necessary adjustments, they must submit the required papers once again. The assistant editor also evaluates the idea and content of the text and offers his comments.

If the paper does not meet the specified standard or is not pertinent to the goal and scope of JLLRD, it will be rejected. Therefore, full approval is not guaranteed by initial screening acceptance; the author will have to submit modifications for the feedback obtained from the second peer review.

The paper will next be sent to one or more Advisory Editors (for topic and content review), at least two Reviewers in our Reviewer Panel, and at least one Associate Editor (for subject review). At least five peer reviewers who are not on our Editorial Board or review panel but who have recently worked on or published works that are relatively comparable to the title and purpose of the paper will also be requested at the same time. We ensure that they accept reviewer policy upon acceptance of our request, and they will transmit the paper to individuals who have agreed to participate in peer review. This will ensure that the article will be thoroughly reviewed in light of current developments in that specific field. We go out to these specific reviewers and request that they carry out a peer review until we receive a response. The purpose of this review is to ascertain the manuscript's applicability, necessity for the investigation, suitable methodology, precise interpretation of the findings, clear explanation of the findings, and so on.

Reviewers must do their jobs on schedule and in accordance with all requirements. They have to cooperate with the editorial office to achieve deadlines. Students are required to annotate the article in the appropriate areas with their observations and suggestions.

Reviewers have a responsibility to evaluate every aspect of a study publication fairly and impartially, including content, originality, results application, data analysis and interpretation, etc. They are also requested to provide constructive comments, ideas, and advice. In addition to considering the English language and grammar, the reviewer should consider additional factors while assessing whether the work is acceptable. Please refer to "For Reviewers" on the main page of our journal for additional information.

To assist ensure an unbiased, equitable assessment of the work, we employ a double-blind peer review procedure, in which the identities of the reviewers and authors are kept a secret from one another. Strict secrecy is guaranteed in this respect until the work is accepted and published. The reviewers' list would stay confidential until the article was published.

Comments from reviewers are sent to the author for revision or rectification, with the understanding that the author will reply. This process continues until the article is approved by the reviewer (condition statement or not). After that, the manuscript—along with the reviewers' feedback and any author edits that are required—would be sent to the managing editor or editor in chief (second screening). Depending on the peer reviewers' feedback, the paper will either be ultimately accepted or rejected at this step. When a manuscript is finally accepted, the author will be notified promptly. If the manuscript is rejected, the chief/managing editor may decide to send it to two more reviewers (Reviewer 4 and Reviewer 5). If both reviewers agree, the work will be accepted for publication; if not, the author will receive a rejection letter explaining why it was rejected.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer's judgment, they have the right to file an appeal and offer arguments for why the document ought to be approved. Based on the author's justifications and arguments, the chief editor chooses to reevaluate for a second round of peer review.

Following the author's final proof adjustments to the preprint proof, the article is generated as PDF files for publication. From the time a manuscript is submitted until it is published, we try our best to peer-review it all. If a manuscript is discovered to contain errors, to violate an embargo, to have the author acting unethically, or for any other reason, the author will be contacted and asked to correct the work or provide an explanation. The manuscript will not be published if the corrections or justifications are insufficient.

Please refer COPE FLOW charts.