Review Guidelines

Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behave responsibly and ethically. In the peer-review process, the role of peer reviewers is highly critical and inevitable; however, due to inadequate guidance, the peer reviewers are often unaware of their ethical obligations. Thus, the International Journal of Policy Studies (IJPS) follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, or act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should:

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise prerequisite to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess on time
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making slanderous or derogatory personal comments
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and promptly
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Reviewers’ Conflict of Interest

The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

• Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
• Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organizational unit in the past 3 years
• Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author (s) or being susupervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
• Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
• Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
• Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed

It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g. EU or DARPA) or if they have co-organized an event (e.g PC co-chairs).