Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Peace, Governance and Social Change (IJPGSC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and timely peer review process. Peer review plays a vital role in ensuring the quality, originality, validity, and significance of the research published in the journal. It enables editors to make informed publication decisions while providing authors with constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. During this stage, the manuscript is assessed to determine whether it falls within the aims and scope of the journal and complies with the journal's submission guidelines.

The editorial assessment also examines the originality of the work, the quality of the writing, adherence to ethical standards, and the overall suitability of the manuscript for peer review. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

Plagiarism Screening

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it is screened using plagiarism detection software to assess its originality. The journal maintains a strict policy against plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, and other forms of research misconduct.

If substantial plagiarism or unethical publication practices are identified, the manuscript may be rejected immediately. The editorial office may request clarification or revisions from the authors where appropriate.

Double-Blind Peer Review

IJPGSC operates a double-blind peer review system. Under this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

The double-blind review process minimizes bias and promotes objective, independent, and impartial evaluation of scholarly work based solely on its academic merit.

Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript that successfully passes the initial editorial assessment is assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic.

The journal seeks reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer is expected to decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to several academic and ethical criteria. They assess whether the research addresses an important problem, demonstrates originality, and makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge. Reviewers also examine the clarity of the research objectives, the appropriateness of the research design and methodology, the quality of data analysis, the interpretation of findings, and the validity of the conclusions.

In addition, reviewers evaluate the organization and clarity of the manuscript, the relevance and adequacy of the literature review, compliance with ethical standards, and the accuracy of citations and references. Constructive recommendations are provided to help authors strengthen their work where improvements are needed.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing their evaluation, reviewers submit detailed reports along with one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revisions.

  • Accept with minor revisions.

  • Reconsider after major revisions.

  • Reject the manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, objective, and constructive comments that support their recommendations and assist both the editors and the authors.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor considers the reviewers' reports before making a final editorial decision. While reviewers' recommendations are given significant weight, the final decision rests solely with the editor.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, significance, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope. Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may invite an additional independent reviewer before reaching a decision.

Authors are notified promptly of the editorial decision together with anonymous reviewer comments and any required revisions.

Revision Process

Authors receiving requests for revision should address each reviewer comment carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline. A detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed should accompany the revised submission.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested. The editorial office may also determine that further review is unnecessary if the revisions satisfactorily address all concerns.

Confidentiality

The journal treats all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, copy, or distribute unpublished manuscripts or use information obtained during the review process for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the journal adopts an alternative review model with the explicit agreement of all parties.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. Individuals with conflicts of interest should decline involvement in the editorial or review process.

Authors are also required to disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that may influence the interpretation of their research.

Timeliness of Review

The journal strives to provide authors with an efficient and timely review process. Reviewers are normally requested to complete their evaluations within two to four weeks of accepting the review invitation. Although review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript, the editorial office works diligently to minimize delays while maintaining the quality of the review process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and professionally. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate, and reviews should focus exclusively on the scholarly quality of the work. Reviewers should identify relevant published literature that has not been cited by the authors and should notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, or any other form of research misconduct.

Appeals

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. Appeals should clearly explain the reasons for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence where appropriate. The journal will review all appeals fairly and may seek additional independent expert opinions before making a final decision.

Commitment to Quality

The International Journal of Peace, Governance and Social Change is committed to maintaining a rigorous, impartial, and transparent peer review process that promotes academic excellence and research integrity. By adhering to internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing, the journal ensures that every published article meets high standards of originality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and scientific contribution.