Review Process

Review Process

Responsive: Journal of Thought and Research in Public Administration, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Public Policy applies the following review policy:

  1. Authors are advised to perform a preliminary plagiarism check and to ensure the manuscript is free of any other copyright infringement prior to submission. This does not replace the journal's own mandatory similarity screening (see Publication Ethics, Section 2), which is applied to every submission and carries a maximum acceptable similarity index of 20%.
  2. Submitted manuscripts first undergo an editorial (desk) review, primarily to assess conformity with the journal's aims and scope, and the manuscript template. During this stage, the editor communicates with the author as needed to determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to reviewers or should be returned or declined without further review.
  3. Manuscripts that pass the desk review are sent to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise for content evaluation using a double-blind review method, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the process.
  4. Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest with the author(s), including shared institutional affiliation, prior collaboration, or a supervisory relationship, and to withdraw from the review where such a conflict exists.
  5. The review evaluates novelty, objectivity, methodological soundness, scientific and/or policy impact, the validity of the conclusions, and the adequacy and currency of the references.
  6. Each reviewer submits one of the following recommendations: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
  7. Where the two reviewers' recommendations diverge substantially (e.g., one recommends acceptance and the other rejection), the editor either seeks the opinion of a third, independent reviewer or refers the manuscript to a senior member of the editorial board for a final recommendation.
  8. The editor makes a decision on the manuscript, taking the reviewers' recommendations into account, and communicates it to the author together with the reviewers' comments.
  9. Authors who believe an editorial decision resulted from a procedural error or a misunderstanding of the manuscript's content may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the case, where necessary in consultation with an independent editorial board member not involved in the original decision. The outcome of this review is final.
  10. The entire review process is conducted fully online through the OJS platform, ensuring a transparent and auditable submission and review trail.
  11. The estimated duration of the review process, from submission to first decision, is 6-10 weeks.