Reviewer Guidelines

1. REVIEWER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality and scientific integrity of Governmentality, Pluralism and Public Policy. The peer review process, conducted professionally, honestly, and constructively, forms the primary foundation of academic community trust in the journal.

Each reviewer is expected to fulfill their duties with full responsibility, objectivity, and commitment to the highest standards of scholarship.

2. REVIEWER AVAILABILITY AND REVIEW TIMELINES

  • Confirm availability within 3 working days of invitation
  • Promptly decline if unavailable and suggest alternative reviewers if possible
  • Complete review within 4 weeks of manuscript receipt
  • Inform the editor immediately if additional time is required

3. CONFIDENTIALITY

  • Manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared without editor permission
  • Data or ideas must not be used for personal purposes before publication
  • Reviewer identities remain undisclosed under double-blind review

4. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers must decline invitations if conflicts exist, including:

  • Recent collaboration with authors (last 3 years)
  • Same institutional affiliation
  • Personal, academic, or financial conflicts
  • Prior exposure to the manuscript

If conflicts arise during review, reviewers must inform the editor immediately.

5. ASPECTS FOR EVALUATION

a. Relevance and Contribution

  • Alignment with journal scope
  • Original and significant contribution
  • Distinctiveness of argument

b. Theoretical Foundation

  • Clarity and coherence of framework
  • Engagement with relevant literature
  • Clearly articulated theoretical position

c. Methodology

  • Alignment with research objectives
  • Transparency in data and analysis
  • Acknowledgment of limitations

d. Quality of Argument and Analysis

  • Logical and evidence-based argument
  • Depth of analysis
  • Critical and reflective interpretation

e. Literature Review

  • Relevant and up-to-date sources
  • Coverage of key literature
  • Appropriate citation use

f. Structure and Cohesion

  • Logical organization
  • Consistency across sections
  • Alignment of title, abstract, and conclusion

g. Language Quality

  • Clear and precise academic English
  • Note issues affecting comprehension

6. REVIEW REPORT STRUCTURE

a. Manuscript Summary

Provide a brief 2–3 paragraph summary of the manuscript’s argument, approach, and contribution.

b. Major Comments

  • Address fundamental issues
  • Reference specific sections/pages
  • Provide explanation and constructive suggestions

c. Minor Comments

  • Technical corrections
  • Style improvements
  • Minor clarifications

7. EDITORIAL RECOMMENDATION

Reviewers must choose one recommendation:

  • Accept – Ready for publication
  • Minor Revision – Small improvements needed
  • Major Revision – Substantial revision required
  • Reject – Not suitable for publication

Recommendations must align with comments and include clear justification.

8. REVIEWER ETHICS STANDARDS

  • Objective and unbiased assessment
  • Constructive and respectful feedback
  • No use of manuscript data for personal research
  • Report ethical violations immediately
  • No delegation without editor approval

9. RECOGNITION OF REVIEWER CONTRIBUTIONS

  • Annual anonymized reviewer list publication
  • Reviewer certificates provided
  • Recognition via Publons/Web of Science (with consent)

10. CONTACT INFORMATION

Editorial Email: [journal email]
Submission System: [URL]