Manuscript Submission Process

Manuscript preparation for anonymous review

MCLP operates a blind peer review process for research articles. Before submitting, remove all author-identifying information from the manuscript: names, affiliations, and acknowledgements; self-citations phrased in a way that reveals authorship (cite your own work in the third person); and identifying metadata in the file properties. Author details are entered separately in the submission system.

Formatting and editorial guidelines

  • Submit manuscripts as [.docx] files.
  • Include an abstract of no more than 250 words and 4–6 keywords.
  • Use footnotes rather than endnotes.
  • Referencing style: OSCOLA. [Taylor's sentence for authors from other disciplines]
  • Number all pages.

 Documents and information authors must provide upon submission

  • Anonymised manuscript formatted in accordance with editorial guidelines.
  • Authors’ data, including affiliation(s), ORCID number, e-mail address.
  • Information about funding received to prepare the manuscript.
  • Information about any conflict(s) of interest.

Empirical work

Submissions presenting empirical research should describe their methodology and data in sufficient detail to allow evaluation, and indicate whether ethical approval was obtained where applicable. Authors are encouraged to make data and code available where possible, and host it independently in a manner that does not affect the double-blinded peer review.

Editorial workflow

Initial editorial assessment

Each manuscript submitted to the MCLP is first assessed by editors, who first verify the type of contribution, its relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to technical (e.g. text formatting and citation style) and ethical (see Ethics Statement and AI Policy) requirements. If the contribution is not relevant to the journal’s scope or does not adhere to ethical requirements, a rejection letter will be sent. If the contribution does not adhere to technical requirements, editors retain discretion to either ask authors for revisions or to send a rejection letter.

Editorial or peer review process

If the contribution is a research article, editors decide whether the article is suitable for peer review based on its academic quality and originality. Once this initial evaluation is passed, the manuscript is sent for a double-blind peer review. MCLP uses double-blind peer review only for articles. The other submissions (editorials, book reviews, new ideas essays) only go through editorial review. Upon identifying a contribution as not a research article, editors conduct the review and decide on its suitability for publication based on its academic quality and originality.

Language and technical editing

The journal does not offer professional language and technical editing services. Submitting authors are responsible for ensuring adherence to technical requirements of the journal and proof-reading of their manuscripts.

Author revisions

If peer or editorial review indicates the need for revisions, authors will be promptly notified by editors and provided with necessary feedback. The timeframe for revisions will be determined in consultation with the authors, depending on the extent of required revisions, authors’ availability, and publications’ deadlines, but is expected to take between 2 weeks to 1 month. Editors will review the submitted revisions and their compliance to the received feedback, taking the final decision on the paper’s acceptance or rejection within 2 weeks from the receipt of the revisions. In borderline cases, editors reserve the right to consult the reviewers, which may prolong the acceptance process.

Galley proofs

to add sentence

Author confirmation

Authors are expected to confirm the accuracy of galley proofs without undue delay.

Online publication

Upon confirmation of galley proofs by authors, the peer-reviewed article will be published online between two weeks and 1 month. Publication will not be dependent on other articles or contributions in the same issue, to avoid unnecessary waiting times. 

Editorial timelines

Anticipated timelines for each issue:

  • Initial editorial assessment – within 2 weeks from submission/close of call;
  • Editorial review – within 2 weeks from notification about the outcome of initial editorial assessment
  • Peer review – within 3 months from notification about the outcome of initial editorial assessment;
  • Author revisions – within 2 weeks to 1 month from notification about the outcome of peer review process. 
  • Galley proofs – within 2 weeks from decision of acceptance.
  • Author confirmation – within one week from receipt of galley proofs.
  • Online publication  - within 2 weeks to 1 month from receipt of author confirmation for galley proofs.