Peer Review Process

1. Initial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope and aims

  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements

  • Originality check using plagiarism detection software (iThenticate)

  • Basic academic quality and methodological soundness

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria will be desk-rejected without proceeding to further review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial screening enter the double-blind peer review process:

  • Identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process

  • At least two independent experts review each manuscript

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the specific field of public management

3. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are chosen based on:

  • Academic qualifications and publication record in public management

  • Previous reviewing experience

  • Absence of conflicts of interest with authors

  • Expertise in the manuscript's specific subject area

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
Academic Quality:

  • Originality and significance to the field

  • Theoretical foundation and conceptual framework

  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness

  • Validity of data analysis and interpretation

Presentation and Structure:

  • Clarity of research questions and objectives

  • Logical organization and coherence

  • Quality of literature review

  • Effectiveness of tables, figures, and illustrations

Substance and Contribution:

  • Contribution to public management theory and practice

  • Relevance to current issues in public administration

  • Practical implications for policymakers and practitioners

  • Ethical considerations in research methodology

5. Review Outcomes

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revisions

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required

  • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on:

  • Reviewers' reports and recommendations

  • Manuscript's overall quality and contribution

  • Consistency with journal's standards and scope

7. Revision Process

For manuscripts requiring revisions:

  • Authors receive anonymized reviewers' comments

  • Authors submit revised manuscript within specified timeframe

  • Point-by-point response to all reviewers' comments required

  • Revised manuscripts are typically re-evaluated by original reviewers

8. Second Review Cycle

  • Revised manuscripts undergo same rigorous review process

  • Additional rounds of review may be requested if necessary

  • Final acceptance decision made by Editor-in-Chief

9. Timeline

Standard Review Process:

  • Initial screening: 1-2 weeks

  • First round of peer review: 4-6 weeks

  • Author revision period: 2-4 weeks

  • Second review cycle: 2-3 weeks

Total process typically takes 12-16 weeks from submission to final decision.

10. Quality Assurance

Measures to ensure review quality:

  • Regular reviewer performance evaluation

  • Reviewer guidelines and training materials

  • Monitoring of review timeliness and quality

  • Database of reliable and thorough reviewers

11. Confidentiality

All parties must maintain confidentiality:

  • Reviewers must not share manuscript details

  • Authors must not reveal their identity to reviewers

  • Editorial staff must protect all confidential information

12. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal decisions by:

  • Submitting formal appeal to Editor-in-Chief

  • Providing detailed response to reviewers' comments

  • New evidence addressing rejection reasons

13. Ethical Standards

The process adheres to:

  • COPE guidelines for peer review

  • Strict confidentiality protocols

  • Transparency in decision-making

  • Fair and unbiased evaluation