Article Types
GGSR accepts several forms of scholarly contribution. Select the category that best describes the manuscript’s question, evidence, and purpose rather than its preferred length alone. Editors may recommend a different category when that better reflects the work.
Categories and indicative lengths
The following ranges normally exclude references, tables, figures, appendices, and supplementary materials. They are guidance rather than a reason to add material that does not advance the argument. Authors whose work requires a substantially different length should explain the reason to the editor.
| Article type | Indicative length | Expected contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Original Research Article | 6,000–9,000 words | A developed empirical or theoretical investigation with a clear question, appropriate analysis, and original findings. |
| Review Article | 6,000–10,000 words | A critical synthesis of a defined literature that explains the selection of sources and develops an argument about the field. |
| Theoretical or Conceptual Article | 5,000–8,000 words | Development, clarification, or reassessment of concepts, theories, or analytical frameworks. |
| Comparative Study | 6,000–9,000 words | Systematic comparison of governance settings, institutions, or policies using a justified comparative design. |
| Policy and Institutional Analysis | 4,000–7,000 words | Evidence-based examination of institutional arrangements or policy developments and their wider implications. |
| Research Note | 3,000–5,000 words | A focused finding, replication, methodological contribution, or dataset with a defined scholarly use. |
| Commentary / Perspective | 2,000–4,000 words | A reasoned scholarly interpretation of an important debate or governance development. |
Choosing and developing a contribution
Original research and comparative studies should explain the relationship between the design and the claims. A comparative paper requires a reason for selecting its cases and a basis for interpreting similarities and differences; presenting several case descriptions is not sufficient on its own.
Review articles should identify the debate being reviewed and explain how sources were found and selected. Systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews should describe procedures appropriate to their approach. A theoretical article should specify what the proposed concept or framework explains, how it relates to existing work, and its scope conditions.
Policy and institutional analyses should document the policy setting, relevant actors, evidence, and evaluative criteria. Recommendations should acknowledge implementation constraints and competing objectives. Research notes should state their focused contribution without claiming a broader reach than the evidence supports. Commentaries and perspectives may advance a position, but must engage fairly with relevant scholarship and distinguish interpretation from established findings.
Review and common requirements
Research, review, conceptual, comparative, policy-analysis, and research-note manuscripts undergo external review after editorial screening. Commentaries and perspectives are normally externally reviewed; any material exception to that pathway is identified by the editor. Invitations do not waive ethical requirements or guarantee acceptance.
All categories require accurate references, appropriate declarations, and compliance with the journal’s authorship, originality, data, and AI policies. See Manuscript Preparation for presentation and Peer Review for assessment criteria.