1. Purpose of Peer Review
International Journal of Public Policy and Administration Research (IJPPAR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and timely peer review process. Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing that ensures the quality, originality, validity, and relevance of research before publication.
The journal aims to publish high-quality theoretical, empirical, and policy-oriented research that contributes significantly to the fields of public policy, public administration, governance, public management, and related disciplines. The peer review process supports the integrity of the scholarly record and assists editors in making informed publication decisions.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts submitted to IJPPAR undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. The purpose of this screening is to determine whether the manuscript:
-
Falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
-
Meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements;
-
Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly merit;
-
Complies with ethical and publication standards;
-
Is written in clear and understandable academic English.
Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be rejected without external review. This process ensures efficient handling of submissions and preserves the quality of the journal's peer review system.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
IJPPAR operates a double-blind peer review system. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Authors must ensure that all identifying information is removed from the manuscript and supplementary materials before submission.
Following successful editorial screening, manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the subject area of the manuscript.
The double-blind review process is intended to promote fairness, objectivity, and impartiality by reducing potential bias associated with authors' identities, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, or academic status.
4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
-
Originality and innovation of the research;
-
Relevance to public policy and administration research;
-
Theoretical and practical significance;
-
Methodological rigor and research design;
-
Validity and reliability of data and analysis;
-
Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript;
-
Adequacy of literature review and references;
-
Strength and appropriateness of conclusions and policy implications;
-
Compliance with ethical research standards.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve the quality of their work.
5. Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewers' recommendations and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:
-
Accept without revision;
-
Accept subject to minor revisions;
-
Reconsider after major revisions;
-
Reject with encouragement to resubmit;
-
Reject.
The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Editors may seek additional expert opinions when necessary.
6. Plagiarism Detection and Originality Verification
IJPPAR is committed to publishing original scholarly work and preventing academic misconduct. All submitted manuscripts are screened using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service prior to publication.
The journal does not tolerate:
-
Plagiarism;
-
Self-plagiarism;
-
Duplicate or redundant publication;
-
Data fabrication or falsification;
-
Citation manipulation;
-
Image or figure manipulation;
-
Any other form of publication misconduct.
Suspected cases of misconduct are investigated in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
7. Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence the research, review process, or editorial decision-making.
Conflicts of interest may include financial relationships, employment, consultancies, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, or academic competition.
Authors must include a Conflict of Interest Statement in their manuscripts. Reviewers and editors must decline participation when conflicts may compromise objectivity.
8. Research Ethics and Human Participants
Research involving human participants must comply with internationally accepted ethical principles and applicable national regulations.
Where applicable, authors must:
-
Obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethics Committee, or equivalent authority before conducting the research;
-
Clearly state ethics approval information in the manuscript;
-
Ensure that participants provide informed consent;
-
Protect participants' privacy, confidentiality, and rights.
The journal reserves the right to request evidence of ethical approval and informed consent during the review process.
9. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and related review materials are treated as confidential documents.
Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not:
-
Share manuscript content with unauthorized persons;
-
Use unpublished information for personal, academic, or financial gain;
-
Disclose reviewer identities or confidential review comments.
Confidentiality must be maintained throughout and after the peer review process.
10. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
The journal also welcomes complaints concerning editorial processes, peer review conduct, publication ethics, or conflicts of interest. All appeals and complaints are handled fairly, transparently, and in accordance with COPE Core Practices and ethical guidelines.
11. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
IJPPAR adheres to the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to promoting integrity, transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct throughout the publication process.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher share responsibility for maintaining the quality and credibility of the scholarly record. Any allegation of misconduct before or after publication will be investigated appropriately, and corrective actions, including corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, may be implemented when necessary.
12. Continuous Improvement of the Peer Review Process
The journal periodically reviews and updates its peer review procedures to ensure alignment with international publishing standards and evolving best practices in scholarly communication. IJPPAR is committed to maintaining a robust, efficient, and ethical peer review system that supports the dissemination of high-quality research in public policy and administration.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). World Scientific.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103