Peer Review Process
At Policies, Administration and Markets Journal (PAMJ), the peer review process is a cornerstone of our commitment to maintaining academic excellence, fairness, and transparency. The journal adheres to the highest international standards for peer review, in alignment with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and best practices from leading scientific journals.
This section provides a detailed overview of the objectives, structure, responsibilities, timelines, ethical considerations, and evaluation criteria that govern the peer review process at PAMJ.
1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is designed to:
- Ensure scientific quality, originality, and methodological soundness of submitted research
- Safeguard the credibility of academic publishing by subjecting articles to expert scrutiny
- Provide constructive feedback to authors for improving their manuscripts
- Support editorial decision-making by offering unbiased expert evaluations
- Maintain integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly communication
Peer review also serves as a mentorship process, especially for early-career researchers, by enhancing scholarly dialogue and improving research design, interpretation, and communication.
2. REVIEW MODEL: DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW
PAMJ employs a double-blind peer review process, which ensures that:
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
This model is adopted to minimize bias based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or academic status, and to create a fair and balanced review environment.
3. STAGES OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Step 1: Editorial Pre-Screening
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial technical and thematic check to ensure that:
- The manuscript fits the scope of the journal
- The submission complies with formatting and ethical standards
- The manuscript passes an initial plagiarism screening using detection software (e.g., iThenticate)
Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria are desk-rejected or returned to the author for corrections.
Step 2: Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers are selected based on:
- Their expertise in the manuscript's subject area
- Their academic reputation and experience
- Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the topic
Reviewers are typically PhD holders or senior researchers with recognized publication records.
Step 3: Review Process
Reviewers are given 2 to 4 weeks to submit their evaluations via the journal’s online platform. Reviews are submitted using a structured form that covers:
- Originality and significance
- Methodological rigor
- Clarity of structure and writing
- Quality of data and analysis
- Relevance to journal scope and readership
- Ethical compliance and contribution to knowledge
Reviewers provide detailed comments and a confidential recommendation to the editor.
Step 4: Editorial Decision
The editorial team consolidates reviewer feedback and makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
- Reject
Authors are notified of the decision along with anonymous reviewer comments and an editorial summary.
Step 5: Revision and Re-Review (if applicable)
For revised submissions:
- Authors must provide a detailed response letter explaining how the reviewer's comments were addressed
- Editors may consult the original reviewers for a second review
- Revised manuscripts must be submitted within 15-30 days, depending on the revision type.
Step 6: Final Acceptance and Production
Once all conditions are met, the manuscript is formally accepted. The article enters copyediting, formatting, and DOI assignment, followed by online publication.
4. TIMELINE AND EFFICIENCY
PAMJ strives to maintain an efficient peer review workflow while preserving academic rigor.
Total time from submission to publication typically ranges between 8 to 12 weeks.
5. REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES AND ETHICS
Reviewers must:
- Treat manuscripts confidentially
- Provide objective and constructive feedback
- Refrain from using manuscript content for personal or professional advantage
- Disclose any potential conflict of interest
- Decline reviews when the topic is outside their expertise
- Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
Failure to adhere to these principles may result in removal from the reviewer database.
6. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MANUSCRIPTS
Each manuscript is evaluated based on:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Originality and contribution to the field
- Clarity of problem statement and objectives
- Adequacy of literature review and theoretical framework
- Appropriateness of research design and methods
- Validity and reliability of data and results
- Critical depth of discussion and implications
- Writing quality, organization, and referencing
- Ethical compliance
Reviewers are encouraged to provide actionable suggestions to improve the work, regardless of the recommendation.
7. AUTHOR RIGHTS AND APPEALS
Authors have the right to:
- Receive detailed and timely review reports
- Request clarification on reviewer feedback
- Appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal, written justification to the Editor-in-Chief
Appeals are reviewed by a separate editorial panel, whose decision is final. Appeals must be evidence-based and respectful.
8. RECOGNITION AND SELECTION OF REVIEWERS
- PAMJ acknowledges the invaluable contributions of its reviewers in upholding academic integrity.
- Reviewers may receive certificates of recognition, be listed on the journal’s website (with consent), and be invited to serve as guest editors or editorial board members for special issues.
- PAMJ participates in Publons and other peer review recognition systems.
The principles of rigor, fairness, and transparency govern the peer review process at PAMJ. All stakeholders—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic ethics.
PAMJ constantly works to improve its editorial process and welcomes suggestions from the scholarly community.
