About the Journal

  • Focus and Scope

    Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government is an international journal for the study of the politics, administration, and management of local affairs published four times a year (in January, April, July, and October). The journal publishes articles that contribute to the better understanding and practice of local self-government and that are of interest to scholars, policy analysts, policymakers, and practitioners. The focus of the journal is on the critical analysis of developments in local governance throughout the world. Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government provides a unique forum for the consideration of all issues related to sub-national levels of government. Articles appearing in Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government are abstracted and indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Web of Science), Essential Citation Index (Web of Science), CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Current Geographical Publications, CSA PAIS International, Academic's OneFile (Gale), ERIH Plus, International Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest, Scopus, International Bibliography of Periodical Literature (IBZ), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS).

    Peer Review Process

    All the articles submitted to the Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government are peer-reviewed in double-blind form by two anonymous peer reviewers. The Editorial Board will inform the authors of the results of the reviewers' and editors' work on the text in due time. The Editors reserve the right to make necessary adjustments to the text according to the propositions and standards of the English language.

    Publication Frequency

    Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government is published four times a year (in January, April, July, and October).

    Plagiarism detection

    Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement is a member of the CrossCheck plagiarism detection initiative. In cases of suspected plagiarism CrossCheck report is available to editors of the Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. CrossCheck is a multi-publisher initiative allowing the screening of published and submitted content for originality.

    Article Publication Charges

    Authors submit manuscripts in Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government could choose to pay Open-Access Article Publication Charges (APC) for Fast review, 3500GBP (1-2 months); Regular review, 1800GBP (3-4 months). Or if the author chooses to publish in Non-Open Access mode, the Article Publication Charges would be 1000GBP(around 4 months review period). We could provide publication fee waivers for authors from low-income economies, discounts for authors from lower middle-income economies, and/or waivers and discounts for other authors with demonstrable needs.

    If an article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the article will enter the production cycle.

    Lex localis allows waivers to those authors based in low-income countries and special case. Our journal grant a 50% discount to authors from countries that the World Bank ranked as Low-income economics, so that we can help. Here is the low-income countries list: https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-income.

    Open Access 

    Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government offers authors a choice to publish their research in Open Access. All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We offer authors a choice of user licenses, which define the permitted reuse of articles. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY), Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED)

    Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

    For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer, and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

    Editor Responsibilities

    The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

    The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and potential reviewers, and in some instances, the editorial board members, as appropriate.

    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

    Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
    The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government.

    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

    The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

    The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

    Involvement and cooperation in investigations
    Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

    Reviewer Responsibilities

    Contribution to editorial decisions
    Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

    Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

    Standards of objectivity
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

    Acknowledgement of sources
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

    Disclosure and conflict of interest
    Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

    Author Responsibilities
    Reporting standards Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

    Originality and Plagiarism
    The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

    Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications
    An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

    Acknowledgment of sources
    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

    Authorship of a manuscript
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgment section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

    Hazards and human or animal subjects
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

    Disclosure and conflicts of interest
    All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

    Fundamental errors in published works
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

    Publisher’s Confirmation
    In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.