DOUBLE BLIND PEER-REVIEW POLICY
The policy outlined on this page applies to International Journal of Public Administration, Management and Economic Development (IJPAMED).
All manuscripts are submitted to Editorial Office of IJPAMED in electronic format (doc, docx, rtf) through e-mail email@example.com.
The contribution is in the first instance evaluated by the journal Editor. Only those papers that seem most likely to meet these editorial criteria are sent for formal review. The evaluation is primarily aimed at meeting the following criteria:
- Are the theme and the character of the contribution in accordance with the overall topic of the journal?
- Are the style and language use of the contribution adequate?
- Does the formal treatment of the contribution meet the requirements of the journal template?
- Is the list of used literature and sources of information up-to-date?
- Are the list of the used literature and citations arranged according to Harvard Reference Style?
The Editor is allowed to reject contribution which doesn´t meet the criteria above. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to readers are sent for review, usually to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics). Peer review is an essential part of scientific discourse. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements and assess novelty. The contribution is sent to reviewers without name of author(s), affiliation and acknowledgement. The critical reviews are prepared on the critical form.
The ideal review should answer the following questions:
- Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
- What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?
- How does the paper stand out from others in its field?
- Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
- Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the paper further?
- How much would further work improve it
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
It is helpful to the Editors if reviewers can advise on some of the following points:
- Is the manuscript clearly written?
- If not, how could it be made more clear or accessible to no specialists?
- Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
- Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
The Editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
- Accept with or without editorial revisions.
- Ask the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
- Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.
- Reject outright typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere.
Editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
The decision to accept or reject a paper is based on comments from at least two independent reviewers. Only qualified persons evaluate reviews and make the decision to accept or reject a contribution.
Contributions which met all the criteria for approval are sent to the Editorial Board for acceptance for publishing. The Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision based on opinion of the Editorial Board.
IJPAMED editors treat the submitted manuscript and all communication with authors and referees as confidential. Authors must also treat communication with the journal as confidential: correspondence with the journal, reviewers' reports and other confidential material must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicized without prior permission from the editors, whether or not the contribution is eventually published.