Peer Review Policy
Purpose
The International Public Management Review (IPMR) uses peer review as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring the quality, rigor, relevance, and integrity of the research it publishes.
This policy describes the journal’s peer-review model and editorial review procedures.
Peer Review Model
IPMR operates a double-blind peer-review system.
Under this model:
- reviewers do not know the identity of authors
- authors do not know the identity of reviewers
- reviewer identities are not disclosed during the review process.
Authors are expected to remove identifying information from manuscripts submitted for review.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment.
At this stage, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:
- falls within the journal’s scope
- meets basic scholarly standards
- complies with submission requirements
- satisfies applicable ethical and publication standards.
The journal may decline submissions that are clearly unsuitable for external review.
Initial editorial screening does not constitute acceptance for publication.
Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewer selection is based on:
- subject-matter expertise
- methodological competence
- academic qualifications
- absence of significant conflicts of interest.
The journal seeks to ensure fair, balanced, and informed evaluation.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts with regard to:
- originality and contribution to knowledge
- relevance to the journal’s scope
- theoretical contribution
- methodological rigor
- quality and reliability of evidence
- clarity of argumentation
- organization and presentation of the manuscript
- significance for research and practice.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive recommendations that support the improvement of submitted work.
Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, the responsible editor may reach one of the following decisions:
Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication.
Minor Revisions
The manuscript may be accepted subject to limited revisions.
Major Revisions
Substantial revisions are required before further consideration.
Reject
The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
Editorial decisions are based on reviewer evaluations, editorial judgment, and the journal’s publication standards.
The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to:
- address reviewer comments carefully
- explain revisions made to the manuscript
- identify any recommendations that have not been adopted and provide reasons.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editorial team, depending on the nature of the revisions.
Special Issues
Submissions to special issues are subject to the same scholarly and ethical standards as regular submissions.
Guest editors may assist with editorial management but do not have sole authority over publication decisions.
The Editor-in-Chief maintains oversight of all editorial processes.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.
Information obtained during peer review may only be used for legitimate editorial and review purposes.
The journal maintains the confidentiality of submissions throughout the review process.
Conflicts of Interest
The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the fairness of peer review.
Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose relevant conflicts and, where appropriate, recuse themselves from participation in the review process.
Additional requirements concerning conflicts of interest are set out in the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy, Reviewer Code of Conduct, and Editor Code of Conduct.
Research Integrity During Peer Review
Concerns regarding:
- plagiarism
- duplicate publication
- inappropriate authorship
- data integrity
- unethical research practices
- peer-review manipulation
may be referred for further assessment under the journal’s Research Misconduct Investigation Procedure.
Timeliness
The journal seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining high standards of scholarly evaluation.
Review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and revision requirements.
Authors will be informed of editorial decisions as promptly as possible.
Continuous Improvement
The journal periodically reviews its peer-review procedures to maintain fairness, transparency, efficiency, and alignment with evolving standards of scholarly publishing.
