Peer Review and Research Transparency Policies

Peer Review Process

IAPSS Politikon employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope and adherence to formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this screening are forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased, constructive, and timely feedback. They assess the manuscript’s originality, significance, methodological soundness, and clarity of presentation. Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not shared with other reviewers or the authors.

The editorial team considers the reviewers' evaluations and makes a decision to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. Authors receive the reviewers’ feedback and are invited to submit revisions as necessary. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review at the editors’ discretion.

Research Transparency

IAPSS Politikon is committed to promoting research transparency and reproducibility. Authors are encouraged to provide detailed descriptions of research methods, data collection, and analysis procedures to support replication and validation.

Authors should include a data availability statement in their manuscript, specifying whether their data is publicly accessible and where it can be found. If data cannot be shared due to ethical, legal, or confidentiality constraints, a clear explanation should be provided, along with measures taken to ensure data integrity and reproducibility.

Instructions for Reviewers

• Maintain confidentiality: Do not share or discuss the manuscript without the editor’s explicit permission.
• Declare conflicts of interest: Inform the editor of any potential conflicts, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors.
• Provide constructive feedback: Offer clear, specific, and actionable comments on the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, with suggestions for improvement.
• Assess originality and significance: Evaluate the manuscript’s novelty, importance, and potential contribution to the field.
• Evaluate methodology: Assess the robustness of research design, data collection, and analysis procedures.
• Check for ethical compliance: Ensure adherence to ethical standards and that any ethical concerns are appropriately addressed.
• Be timely: Submit your review within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor if you require an extension.

For more detailed instructions, please click here.

Editorial Process for Authors

1. Submission: Submit your manuscript through the journal's online submission system, ensuring it meets formatting and content guidelines.
2. Initial screening: The editorial team evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for the journal and its compliance with submission guidelines.
3. Peer review: Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review.
4. Editorial decision: The editorial team decides to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript based on the reviewers’ reports.
5. Revision: Authors are invited to address reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response.
6. Re-review (if needed): Revised manuscripts may be reviewed again at the editors’ discretion.
7. Acceptance and publication: Once accepted, authors receive instructions for final formatting, copyright, and proofing. The article is then published online.

Authors may contact the editorial office at any stage for updates or questions regarding their submission.

Last updated: 23 July 2025