Editorial Standards

Peer Review Policy

An overview of our commitment to rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review — the foundation of scholarly quality at the journal.

01

Our Commitment to Peer Review

Review of Public Policy and Social Systems is committed to publishing high-quality research through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines our commitment to academic excellence and ethical publishing standards.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's scope. The peer review process is the cornerstone of maintaining quality and integrity in academic publishing.

02

Review Process

All submissions pass through a structured, multi-stage review process before a final editorial decision is reached.

1

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial team performs a preliminary assessment to evaluate whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, meets basic formatting requirements, and demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality to proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors without external review.

Scope check Quality assessment Format review
2

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. The journal operates a double-blind review process, meaning neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Double-blind 2+ expert reviewers 7–10 days review
3

Editorial Decision

Following the review, the editorial team considers the reviewers' recommendations alongside their own assessment of the manuscript to reach a final decision. Authors are notified of the outcome along with reviewer comments where applicable.

Reviewers' recommendations Editorial judgement Author notification
4

Review Timeline

  • Average total review time: 10–18 days
  • Initial editorial assessment: 3–5 days
  • Double-blind peer review: 7–10 days
  • Final editorial decision: 2–3 days

The journal ensures a fast, transparent, and efficient peer review process while maintaining the highest standards of academic quality.

03

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and novelty of the research
Clarity of the research question and objectives
Appropriateness of methodology
Quality of data analysis and interpretation
Significance and contribution to the field
Writing quality and logical organisation
Relevance to the journal's scope
Compliance with ethical standards

04

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer feedback, the editorial team will communicate one of the following decisions:

Accept Manuscript is accepted with minimal or no revisions required.
Minor Revisions Revisions required but no additional external review is necessary.
Major Revisions Substantial revisions required; revised manuscript may be sent for further review.
Reject Manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or falls outside its scope.

05

Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to address all reviewer comments carefully and submit a detailed response letter alongside the revised manuscript.

  • Authors are given a reasonable period to revise and resubmit their manuscript
  • A point-by-point response to reviewer comments must accompany the revised manuscript
  • Revisions involving significant new research may be subject to additional review
  • Authors are expected to address all reviewer concerns or provide clear justification for not doing so
Revised manuscripts submitted without a response letter may not be processed until the required document is provided.

06

Confidentiality and Ethics

The journal is committed to maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review process. All parties involved — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to observe the following standards:

  • All reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout the review process
  • Reviewers must not disclose or discuss manuscript content with third parties
  • Plagiarism and research misconduct are not tolerated
  • All parties must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest
  • Manuscripts under review must not be shared outside the editorial process
The journal's publication ethics practices align with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any concerns regarding misconduct should be reported to the editorial office.

07

Appeals

Authors who have concerns regarding an editorial decision may contact the editorial office with a clear explanation. Appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should include a detailed account of the grounds for the appeal. The editorial team will consider all appeals fairly and respond within a reasonable timeframe.

Ready to Submit Your Research?

Familiarise yourself with our author guidelines before preparing your manuscript for submission.

Submit a Manuscript Author Guidelines