Subscription
All papers, including those invited by the editor, are subject to a rigorous peer review process. The Journal of Policy Studies (JPS) has adopted a double-blind peer review policy, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous to each other throughout the review process. However, the editor managing the review process will have visibility of the authors and reviewers’ identities. The Editorial Board selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews.
Peer review process
1) Manuscripts to be reviewed: all submitted or invited manuscripts are peer-reviewed.
2) Who conducts peer review: Peer review is conducted by at least two external experts, most commonly three. Reviewers are selected from the list recommended by the corresponding author and the journal's reviewer pools. However, editorial board members may review commissioned manuscripts and editorial materials.
3) Type of peer review: JPS adopts a double-blind peer review, where author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other but visible to the decision-making editor. Reviewers interact only with an editor, ensuring an independent review.
4) Screening before peer review: If the manuscript does not align with the aims and scope of the journal or does not adhere to the “Instructions to authors”, it may be returned to the author immediately after receipt and without peer review. In the case of human population studies, the manuscript without an appropriate ethics statement is also returned to the authors without peer review.
5) Plagiarism check: Before review, all submitted or invited manuscripts are screened with Similarity Check powered by iThenticate (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/), a plagiarism screening tool. If an excessively high similarity score is found, the editorial board will perform a more in-depth content screening. If a certain amount of duplicate content is detected, it is returned to the authors. Detection of the phrases generated by generative artificial intelligence platforms is also done. The detection rate may be reflected in decision making.
6) Author-recommended reviewers: The authors should recommend peer reviewers during submission. The editorial office may select other external experts.
7) Review of research data or supplementary material: Those materials are subjected to peer review.
8) Duration for the first decision: The result of the first peer review is usually finished within 14 days. If there is no correspondence from the editorial office on the fate of the submitted manuscript one months after the submission, please contact the editorial office. The editorial board’s post-review decision will be one of the following: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Rejection.
9) Revision process: The editorial board may request that the authors revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. If the reviewers made any requests for revision of the manuscript, the authors should do their best to revise it accordingly. If a reviewer’s opinion is not acceptable or is believed to reflect misinterpretation of the data, the authors should reasonably indicate this.
After revising the manuscript, the author should upload the revised files with a reply to each item of the reviewer’s commentary. The author’s revisions should be completed within 14 days after the request. If the revisions have not been received by the due date, the editorial board will notify the author. To extend the revision period beyond 14 days, the author should negotiate with the editorial board. The manuscript review process can be provided for up to three rounds. If the authors would like further review, the editorial board may consider it. The editorial board will make a final decision on the approval of the submitted manuscript for publication and can request any further corrections, revisions, and deletions of the article text if necessary.
10) Review by statistician: It can be implemented when data needs professional statistical review by a statistician.
11) Final decision maker: An editorial board finally decides the manuscript's fate, such as accept, reject, and re-submission, after hearing from peer reviewers.
12) Review by the editorial board: The editorial board reviews some publication types, including editorials, errata, corrigenda, retractions, withdrawals, and letters to the editor, without external peer review. Also, they may review commissioned manuscripts.
13) The journal does not guarantee acceptance of initial manuscript submissions except for the commissioned ones.
14) The publication date is published with all published research, including submission and acceptance dates.
15) Review of in-house manuscripts: All manuscripts from editors, staff, or editorial board members are subject to the same review process as other submissions. During the review process, they will not be involved in the selection of reviewers or the decision-making process. Editors will not handle their manuscripts even if they have been commissioned.
Submission of a revised manuscript
When preparing a revised version of your manuscript, carefully follow the instructions provided in the editor's letter. Submit an annotated copy that describes the changes you have made. Failure to do so may delay the decision on your revision. If references, tables, or figures are moved, added, or deleted during the revision process, renumber them to ensure all citations remain in numeric order.
Revised manuscript submissions should include a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Authors should describe how each reviewer comment was addressed or explain why it was not addressed, and clearly indicate which paragraph in the manuscript was revised according to each comment. The response to reviewers will be shared with all reviewers. If certain data should not be included in the manuscript, authors may provide the data supporting their argument in the response to reviewers file.
The annotated copy should have changes highlighted (not by using the Track Changes function in MS Word but by marking them) with notes in the text referring to the editor or reviewer query.
Manuscript withdrawal
Corresponding authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript after submission must provide a signed letter indicating that they represent the wishes of all authors. Manuscripts will remain under consideration until the journal office receives this written request. Manuscripts cannot be withdrawn after final acceptance, except in cases of scientific error or misconduct.
Appeals of decisions
Appeals against editorial decisions must be made within 2 weeks of the decision letter. Authors should contact the editor-in-chief with detailed reasons for the appeal. Appeals are discussed with at least one associate editor and, if needed, at a full editorial meeting. The process follows COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/appeals). JPS does not consider second appeals.
Processing after acceptance
Once the manuscript is finally accepted, a proofread version will be sent to the corresponding author after professional editing. Authors should review the proof for any misspellings or errors. Delayed responses may result in the manuscript's publication being postponed to the next issue.
Galley proof
After corrections have been made, authors will receive the final version of the manuscript as a PDF file. Within 5 working days of receipt, authors must notify the editorial office (or printing office) of any errors found in the file. The proof may be revised more than once by the corresponding author, if needed. Authors should double-check the content, title, affiliations, capitalization, figure locations, and references for accuracy. Corresponding authors are responsible for any further corrections needed after printing.
Post-publication discussions
To correct errors in published articles, the corresponding author should contact the journal’s editorial office with a detailed description of the proposed correction. Errors can be corrected through an erratum (publisher's errors), corrigendum (author's errors), or retraction.
