Peer review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Journal of Policy and Development Studies

Purpose

The peer review process is central to ensuring the academic rigor, integrity, and relevance of all publications within the Journal of Policy and Development Studies. The journal adheres to a double-blind peer review system whereby both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process. This promotes fairness, impartiality, and objectivity in scholarly assessment.

Review Process

  • Initial Screening
    Submissions received via the OJS system undergo a preliminary editorial review. This includes a plagiarism check and assessment of the manuscript’s scope and adherence to journal guidelines.
    • Manuscripts with plagiarism below 15% proceed to the next stage.
    • Those with a similarity index between 16%–25% are rejected and returned to the author for revision.
    • Manuscripts exceeding 25% similarity are rejected outright, without opportunity for resubmission.
  • Review Assignment
    Upon initial acceptance, authors are requested to pay the Article Processing Charge (APC). The editor then anonymizes the manuscript and assigns it to two qualified reviewers drawn from the vetted editorial board.
  • Evaluation and Revisions
    Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations. Authors are required to revise their manuscripts accordingly. Revised versions are returned to the reviewers for further assessment. This cycle is repeated as necessary until the reviewers and editor deem the manuscript suitable for publication.
    • Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage if authors fail to adequately address reviewer comments or uphold scholarly standards.
  • Timeliness
    While review speed depends on reviewer availability and the author’s responsiveness, the editorial office strives to facilitate prompt communication to expedite the process. Prior to reviewer assignment, editors confirm availability to ensure timely completion of reviews.

Quality Assurance

The Chief Editor oversees the peer review process to ensure that all feedback is constructive, unbiased, and consistent with best practices. The journal follows ethical guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Metadata and Final Approval

Following completion of the peer review process, the article is abstracted for metadata generation. Final publication is contingent on the author's approval of the galley proof.

Evidence of Peer Review

Authors receive documented feedback from at least two reviewers upon completion of the review process. Requests for verification—whether by employers or institutional quality assurance entities—are accommodated through formal correspondence with the editorial office.