Editorial Decision Criteria

 

PoliEcoM Administration Review applies clear editorial decision criteria to ensure academic rigor, fairness, transparency, and consistency in manuscript evaluation. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and contribution to international academic and policy debates.

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process for scholarly manuscripts. Reviewer comments inform editorial decisions, but the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or authorized editorial representative according to the journal’s academic standards and publication policies.

1. Core Evaluation Criteria

Fit with Aims and Scope The manuscript should address topics relevant to political economy, public administration, economics, management, governance, public policy, institutional studies, or related fields.
Originality The manuscript should offer new theoretical insight, empirical evidence, analytical interpretation, methodological contribution, policy relevance, or comparative perspective.
Theoretical Contribution The manuscript should engage relevant literature, identify a clear research gap, and contribute meaningfully to scholarly debate.
Methodological Rigor The research design, data, evidence, case selection, methods, and analytical procedures should be appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently justified.
Policy or Practice Relevance The manuscript should provide meaningful implications for governance, public policy, administration, institutional reform, economic management, or organizational practice.
Clarity and Presentation The manuscript should be clearly written in professional American English, logically organized, and prepared according to the journal’s formatting and citation requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Screening Criteria

Before external peer review, each submission is screened by the Editorial Office or an assigned editor. Manuscripts may be returned to authors, rejected without external review, or sent for peer review depending on their suitability and readiness.

  • The manuscript is within the journal’s aims and scope.
  • The submission is complete and prepared according to the journal’s requirements.
  • The manuscript is written in clear American English.
  • The manuscript includes an abstract, keywords, and 3–5 Evidence for Practice bullet points.
  • The opening section does not use a separate heading titled “Introduction.”
  • The manuscript is anonymized for double-blind peer review.
  • The manuscript shows sufficient originality, scholarly contribution, and methodological readiness.
  • The submission does not present apparent ethical or publication integrity concerns.

3. Grounds for Desk Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it does not meet the journal’s basic editorial, scholarly, ethical, or technical requirements.

  • The topic is outside the journal’s disciplinary or thematic scope.
  • The manuscript lacks a clear research question, argument, or scholarly contribution.
  • The manuscript shows serious methodological, analytical, or evidentiary weaknesses.
  • The literature review is insufficient, outdated, or disconnected from the study’s contribution.
  • The manuscript is poorly organized or not written in adequate academic English.
  • The manuscript fails to meet basic formatting, anonymization, or submission requirements.
  • The submission raises serious concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, data integrity, authorship, or research ethics.

4. Peer Review-Based Decision Criteria

For manuscripts sent to external review, editorial decisions are informed by reviewer reports and editorial assessment. Editors consider both the content of reviewer comments and the overall quality, relevance, and potential contribution of the manuscript.

Strength of Reviewer Evidence Editors evaluate whether reviewer comments are specific, evidence-based, and relevant to the manuscript.
Consistency of Reviews Editors consider areas of agreement and disagreement among reviewers and may seek additional review when necessary.
Author Revision Potential Editors assess whether identified weaknesses can reasonably be addressed through revision.
Journal Standards Editors ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for originality, rigor, ethics, and relevance.

5. Editorial Decision Categories

Accept without Revisions The manuscript meets the journal’s academic, ethical, and presentation standards and requires no substantive revision before production.
Accept with Minor Revisions The manuscript is suitable for publication after limited revisions, such as clarification, formatting correction, reference improvement, minor analytical refinement, or language polishing.
Major Revisions Required The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision to theory, literature, methods, analysis, structure, evidence, interpretation, or policy contribution before it can be reconsidered.
Reject The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of insufficient contribution, serious methodological weaknesses, ethical concerns, poor fit with the journal, or limited revision potential.

6. Criteria for Minor Revision

A minor revision decision may be issued when the manuscript is academically sound but requires limited improvement before acceptance.

  • The main argument and contribution are clear and persuasive.
  • The research design, evidence, and analysis are generally appropriate.
  • Required changes are limited in scope and do not require major restructuring.
  • The manuscript may need improved wording, formatting, references, explanation, or presentation.
  • The revisions can normally be assessed by the editor without a full second round of external review.

7. Criteria for Major Revision

A major revision decision may be issued when the manuscript has publishable potential but does not yet meet the journal’s standards.

  • The manuscript addresses an important and relevant research problem.
  • The study has a plausible contribution but requires stronger theoretical framing or literature engagement.
  • The methods, data, case selection, or analytical procedures require substantial clarification or improvement.
  • The findings need stronger evidence, clearer interpretation, or better connection to the research question.
  • The policy or practice implications need to be developed more clearly.
  • The manuscript may require reassessment by reviewers after revision.

8. Criteria for Rejection

A rejection decision may be issued after editorial screening or peer review when the manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

  • The manuscript falls outside the journal’s aims and scope.
  • The research question, argument, or contribution is unclear or insufficient.
  • The theoretical framework is weak, underdeveloped, or disconnected from the analysis.
  • The research design or methodology is seriously flawed.
  • The evidence does not support the conclusions.
  • The manuscript lacks sufficient engagement with relevant international literature.
  • The manuscript has serious ethical, authorship, plagiarism, data, or disclosure concerns.
  • The manuscript would require changes beyond the scope of a reasonable revision process.

9. Revision Assessment

Revised manuscripts are assessed according to how fully and effectively authors respond to reviewer and editorial comments. Authors should submit a detailed response letter explaining each change made and identifying where revisions appear in the manuscript.

  • The response letter addresses all reviewer and editor comments.
  • Revisions are substantive, accurate, and clearly identified.
  • The revised manuscript resolves major theoretical, methodological, analytical, or presentation concerns.
  • Authors provide reasoned explanations when they do not adopt a reviewer’s suggestion.
  • The revised manuscript continues to comply with ethical and formatting requirements.

10. Editorial Independence and Final Authority

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or authorized editorial representative. Editors may make a decision that differs from reviewer recommendations when justified by scholarly standards, ethical considerations, journal policy, reviewer disagreement, or the overall editorial assessment of the manuscript.

Payment of publication charges, waiver requests, institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority, personal relationship, or other non-scholarly considerations do not influence editorial decisions.

11. Ethical and Integrity Considerations

Editorial decisions may be affected by ethical or integrity concerns identified before, during, or after peer review. The Editorial Office may reject a manuscript, request clarification, seek additional documentation, or take further action when concerns arise.

  • Plagiarism, duplicate submission, or inappropriate text recycling
  • Data fabrication, falsification, or unreliable evidence
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding sources
  • Inappropriate authorship or contributor disputes
  • Lack of required ethical approval, consent, anonymization, or data protection
  • Misrepresentation of methods, results, affiliations, or institutional approval

12. Appeals

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, misunderstanding, or procedural irregularity. Appeals must provide a clear explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Office, Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriate editorial representative. The submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

13. Contact

Editorial Office: PoliEcoM Administration Review Editorial Office

Email: [email protected]

Official Website: https://journals.panorama-sg.com/index.php/pemr

© 2025 Panorama Scholarly Group. All rights reserved.