Peer Review Process
1. Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Good Governance and Public Policy is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, originality, and integrity. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a peer review process to assess their relevance, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution to the fields of governance, public administration, public policy, and related disciplines.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements, including:
1. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
2. Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template.
3. Originality and appropriate citation practices.
4. Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity standards.
5. Adequacy of the manuscript's structure, language, and presentation.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to peer review.
3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the submission.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment. The editorial team seeks to avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the review process.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when they cannot provide an independent assessment.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
1. Relevance and originality: The significance of the research and its contribution to existing knowledge.
2. Theoretical foundation: The adequacy of the literature review, conceptual framework, and theoretical arguments.
3. Methodological rigor: The appropriateness of the research design, methods, data, and analytical procedures.
4. Results and discussion: The accuracy of the interpretation of findings and the strength of the supporting evidence.
5. Contribution to governance and public policy: The relevance of the findings to academic discourse, public administration, governance practices, or policy development.
6. Clarity and organization: The coherence of the manuscript, academic writing quality, and compliance with the journal's formatting requirements.
7. References and research ethics: The adequacy of citations, the accuracy of references, and compliance with applicable ethical standards.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that help the authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.
5. Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the journal may make one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or technical adjustments.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.
- Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.
The final decision rests with the editor or Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but are not automatically binding. The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript when the evidence, quality, relevance, or ethical compliance does not meet its standards.
6. Revision and Resubmission
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office.
Authors should provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments, explaining how each concern has been addressed. When a suggestion is not adopted, authors should provide a clear and reasoned explanation.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the comments.
7. Confidentiality and Anonymity
All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, review reports, or editorial discussions to unauthorized parties.
Under the double-blind peer review system, authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file where appropriate. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors, and authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers.
Information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage, research, or other purposes without appropriate authorization.
8. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality.
A conflict of interest may arise from financial relationships, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, professional competition, or other circumstances that could influence the evaluation of a manuscript.
Where a conflict of interest exists, the relevant editor or reviewer must withdraw from the review process, and an alternative qualified individual will be appointed when necessary.
9. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics
The journal expects authors, editors, and reviewers to adhere to recognized principles of publication ethics and research integrity.
Manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, data fabrication, data falsification, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Any suspected ethical concern will be assessed by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable.
The journal may reject a manuscript or take further corrective action if a violation is established.
10. Review Timeline
The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the time required for authors to respond to comments.
The editorial office will make reasonable efforts to process manuscripts efficiently and communicate important decisions to authors in a timely manner.
Any review-time estimates published by the journal should be understood as indicative rather than guaranteed.
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, providing clear reasons and relevant supporting evidence.
Appeals must address substantive concerns, factual errors, procedural irregularities, or potential conflicts of interest. Disagreement with a decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration.
Complaints concerning the peer review process or editorial conduct will be handled fairly and confidentially by an appropriate editor or designated representative who is not directly involved in the matter, where feasible.
12. Final Editorial Authority
The Journal of Good Governance and Public Policy retains final responsibility for all publication decisions. The peer review process is intended to support fair, transparent, and rigorous scholarly evaluation while safeguarding academic independence and publication integrity.
Acceptance of a manuscript does not depend on the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, personal relationships, or ability to pay publication fees. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, research quality, and compliance with the journal's policies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The journal applies this policy to promote a fair and consistent review process. Specific procedures and timelines may be updated by the editorial team to maintain publication quality and align with recognized standards of scholarly publishing.
