Peer Review Process

The Public Administration and Governance Review (PAGR) ensures that all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and quality. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

  • Upon submission, manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal's focus and scope, formatting requirements, and plagiarism policy (using Turnitin).
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be rejected outright or returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to the review stage.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic.

3. Double-Blind Review

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript without knowing the identity of the authors, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.
  • The review process typically evaluates the manuscript based on:
    • Originality and significance of the research.
    • Clarity and relevance of objectives.
    • Appropriateness of methodology.
    • Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
    • Adherence to ethical standards.
    • Contribution to the field of public administration and governance.

4. Reviewers' Recommendations

  • Reviewers provide detailed feedback and make one of the following recommendations:
    1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minimal revisions.
    2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes before being accepted.
    3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed, and the manuscript may undergo another round of review.
    4. Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form.

5. Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are provided with reviewers' comments and are required to address them in a revised manuscript.
  • The revised manuscript is either reviewed again by the same reviewers or assessed by the editorial team for compliance with the requested changes.

6. Final Editorial Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team and reviewers' recommendations, makes the final decision regarding the manuscript's publication.
  • Authors are notified of the decision, which may be:
    • Accepted for publication.
    • Accepted with revisions.
    • Rejected with the option to resubmit after significant revisions.

7. Timeline

  • The journal strives to complete the review process within 4–6 weeks of submission.
  • Revisions are typically expected within 2–4 weeks after feedback is provided.

8. Ethical Standards

  • All participants in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, and editors) must adhere to the journal's ethical guidelines to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.