Peer Review Process

We use a double-blind system for peer-review; both reviewers' and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The paper will be peer-reviewed by three experts; two external reviewers and one editor from the journal typically involve in reviewing a manuscript. The review process may take 2-14 weeks. Here is the flow chart of how we evaluate your article.

Pre-check

Immediately upon submission, the journal's Managing Editor will conduct an initial review to determine:

  • The manuscript's overall suitability for the journal/section/Special Issue;
  • The manuscript's adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards; and
  • The manuscript's rigour in order to qualify for further review.

Academic editors, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board of on International Journal Policy Management in the case of a conflict of interest and for regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief permits, will be notified of the submission and invited to conduct a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors have the option of proceeding with peer review, rejecting a paper, or requesting amendments prior to peer review.

Special Issue Guest Editors are not permitted to make choices on their own manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, since this would represent a conflict of interest. Rather than that, an Editorial Board member will be in charge of decision-making. Except in their capacity as author, the Guest Editor will be unable to participate in the review process. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief and other Editorial Board members do not have access to their manuscript's review process except in their capacity as author.

Peer-review

From submission to final decision or publishing, a dedicated member of the editorial board organizes the review process and acts as the primary point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

For the majority of journals, the review process is double-blind, which means that the author is unaware of the reviewer's identity, and the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity as well. Certain the journals use double-blind peer review, in which the author is ignorant of the reviewer's identity and the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity.

Each submitted paper receives at least two review reports. The academic editor may provide reviewer suggestions during pre-check. Alternatively, the editorial team will consult with qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from our database, and fresh reviewers discovered via online searches for similar papers.

If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers may apply to evaluate a paper if the authors agree during submission.

All reviewers are subjected to the following checks:

  • They must not have a conflict of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
  • They must have a Master or PhD;
  • They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper; and Reviewers who agree to review an article are required to meet the following criteria:
    • Have the appropriate competence to evaluate the manuscript's quality;
    • Provide high-quality review reports and maintain responsiveness during peer review; and
    • Adhere to professional and ethical standards.

Reviewers who accept an offer to submit a review have 2–10 weeks to complete it using our online platform.

Reviewers are requested to provide their report on a revised manuscript within three days of receiving it. Extensions are also available upon request.

The administrative staff assists academic editors by managing all correspondence with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors may check the progress of articles and the identities of reviewers at any time, and can communicate with The staff at any step of the review process.

Revision

When only minor or substantial adjustments are needed, THE staff will ask the author to modify the manuscript prior to forwarding it to the academic editor. When contradictory review reports are received, or when one or more recommendations for rejection are made, the academic editor's judgement will be sought before communicating a modification decision to the authors.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be supplied to reviewers, depending on the reviewer's request. Reviewers who seek significant adjustments or suggest rejection will automatically be provided the amended paper. The Editor allows all reviewers to examine the most current version of the paper.

Normally, a maximum of two rounds of substantial revision are included with each paper. If more rounds are deemed necessary by the reviewers, THE staff will consult with the academic editor.

Editor's Choice

After receiving a minimum of two review reports, the academic editor may make acceptance judgments on papers. An academic editor makes acceptance choices (the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, a Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are unable to make judgments on their own articles, which will be allocated to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board. When making a choice, we want the academic editor to consider the following factors:

  • Reviewer appropriateness;
  • Adequacy of reviewer remarks and author response; and
  • Overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

Accept in its existing form, accept with minor adjustments, reject and deny resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, request revision from the author, or request an additional reviewer.

Reviewers provide suggestions, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors have the right to disagree. They should defend their judgement for the benefit of the writers and reviewers if they do so.

Occasionally, an academic editor may support a paper acceptance decision notwithstanding a reviewer recommendation to reject. Before expressing a final judgement to the authors, THE staff will seek a second independent view from a member of the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief.

Only an academic editor may accept an article for publication. Employed THE personnel, who then tell the writers. THE STAFF NEVER MAKES APPROVAL DECISIONS BASED ON DOCUMENTS.

THE STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD (INCLUDING THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF) DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESSING OF THEIR OWN ACADEMIC WORK. At least two impartial reviewers are appointed to to modify their contributions. Other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the writers make decisions.

This journal is a signatory to the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) (DORA). We seek to publish all scientifically sound submissions and to avoid artificially inflating journal rejection rates, so enabling the reader community to determine impact.

Production

International Journal of Policy Management in-house staff edit and copyedit all manuscripts, as well as convert them to XML. Language editing is performed by English editing professionals. In the few instances when considerable editing or formatting is necessary, we provide writers an English editing service for an extra price (with prior consent from the authors). Additionally, writers may consult alternative English editing services or a native English-speaking colleague—the latter of which is our recommended choice.

Publication Etiquette

International Journal of Policy Management is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and adheres to its Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing Principles. Our journals adhere to COPE's guidelines for dealing with authors, reviewers, and editors who engage in potentially unethical activity. Every member of THE's editorial team is educated in identifying and resolving ethical dilemmas.

The ethical issues for submitting manuscripts are detailed in the journal's directions for authors (see here, for example). Please refer to our policy on Updating Published Papers for further information.

The editorial office will consider ethical concerns reported by readers of the publication in accordance with COPE's guidelines. The Editorial Board may resolve disagreements about the validity of research described in published publications. Where required, we will submit disagreements about authorship, data ownership, and author misbehavior to other entities such as a university ethics commission. Authors are invited to reply to any complaints made against them that are proven.

We adhere to COPE rules for resolving authorship disputes, most notably How to identify authorship issues. Authorship may often be altered using a Correction if all writers agree. If not, we need an authorized declaration indicating who qualifies for authorship from the authors' institution(s).

Standards and Guidelines for Publication

International Journal of Policy Management adheres to the following criteria and standards for publishing its journals:

The standards address every area of editing in depth, from journal management to peer review and managing complaints. The bulk of guidelines are generic and apply to all this papers journal.

The CONSORT statement is a standard for reporting randomised controlled trials. We strongly urge writers to cross-check their work against the checklist and flow diagram and to include them with their submission.

TOP is concerned with the transparency and openness of research reporting. Our publications strive to be level 1 or level 2 in all facets of TOP. Individual journal criteria differ and may be obtained from the editorial office.

The FAIR Principles provide standards for enhancing data's discoverability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability.

PRISMA is a framework for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It is suggested that authors complete the checklist and flow diagram and submit these with their submission.

ARRIVE offers reporting criteria for in vivo research. It is advised that authors cross-check their work against the checklist and submit it with their submission.

Turnitin is an industry-standard plagiarism detection program. Employed during the first screening or pre-check of a manuscript, it may also be used at any point of the peer-review process, most notably before a paper is accepted for publication.

Compliance with the aforementioned criteria and principles will be considered in making the final judgement, and any inconsistencies should be addressed properly by the authors. We propose that writers make a point of emphasising pertinent instructions in their cover letter.

Independence of the Editor

All papers published by International Journal of Policy Management undergo peer review and are evaluated by our independent Editorial Boards; THE staff is not engaged in decision-making on manuscript acceptance. When making a choice, we want the academic editor to base it only on the following criteria:

  • Reviewer appropriateness;
  • Adequacy of reviewer remarks and author response; and
  • Overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

International Journal of Policy Management policies are guided by the objective to make scientific and research discoveries as broadly and speedily available as feasible