Peer Review Policy
Law, Politics, Administration is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and scholarly excellence through a rigorous and impartial peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated on the basis of originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, analytical depth, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope in the fields of law, political science, public administration, governance, and public policy.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it fits the aims and scope of the journal and meets the basic requirements for academic quality, structure, formatting, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or declined before entering the formal review process.
The journal follows a double-blind peer-review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. This approach is intended to promote fairness, objectivity, and independence in the evaluation of scholarly work and to minimize the potential for bias based on institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or other personal characteristics.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent experts with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s theoretical framework, legal or political analysis, research methodology where applicable, use of sources and references, logical coherence, significance of findings, and overall contribution to existing scholarship. Reviewers provide constructive comments intended to assist both the editors in reaching a decision and the authors in improving the quality of their work.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial decision may include acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, invitation for major revisions and resubmission, or rejection. When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers’ observations and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear explanation of the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
Editors are responsible for ensuring that review decisions are based solely on academic merit and scholarly relevance. The editorial team maintains confidentiality throughout the review process and expects reviewers to treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research, professional advantage, or any other unauthorized purpose.
The journal also expects reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to provide an objective assessment. In such cases, alternative reviewers will be appointed. Similarly, editors will avoid handling manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, or institutional conflict of interest.
The peer-review process is designed not only to evaluate manuscripts for publication but also to support the development of high-quality scholarship through constructive academic feedback. By adhering to this policy, Law, Politics, Administration seeks to ensure that all published articles meet recognized international standards of scholarly research, ethical publishing practice, and academic integrity.
