Peer Review Policy

Objective:

The primary objective of the peer review process at "Policy Research Journal" is to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of the scholarly articles submitted for publication. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for maintaining high academic standards and contributing to the advancement of policy research.

Types of Peer Review:

We employ a double-blind peer review process to maintain objectivity and impartiality. Both the identity of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Selection of Reviewers:

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and academic qualifications in the specific field covered by the submitted manuscript. The editorial board ensures that selected reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors and are committed to providing constructive and fair assessments.

Review Criteria:

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  1. Originality and Significance: Assessing the novelty and importance of the research question addressed in the manuscript.
  2. Methodology: Reviewing the appropriateness and rigor of the research design and data analysis.
  3. Clarity and Coherence: Evaluating the overall structure, clarity, and coherence of the manuscript.
  4. Contribution to Policy Research: Examining the manuscript's contribution to advancing knowledge in the field of policy research.
  5. References: Verifying the accuracy and relevance of the cited literature.

Review Process:

  1. Submission: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal's guidelines.
  2. Assignment: Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.
  3. Peer Review: Reviewers provide detailed evaluations, recommendations, and critiques based on the established criteria.
  4. Decision: The editorial board, considering reviewers' feedback, makes a decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  5. Author Feedback: Authors receive anonymized feedback to address concerns, make revisions, or provide clarifications.
  6. Final Decision: Revised manuscripts may undergo further review, and a final decision is made by the editorial board.