Peer Review Process
PoliEcoM Administration Review operates a rigorous editorial evaluation and double-blind peer review process for scholarly manuscripts submitted to the journal. The process is designed to ensure academic quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, theoretical contribution, empirical or analytical strength, clarity of argument, policy relevance, and the assessments of qualified reviewers. Payment of any publication charge does not influence peer review, editorial judgment, or publication decisions.
1. Review Model
| Review Type | Double-blind peer review |
| Reviewer Identity | Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. |
| Author Identity | Author names, affiliations, and identifying information should be removed from the main manuscript file. |
| Editorial Independence | Decisions are made independently by the Editorial Office based on academic and ethical standards. |
2. Initial Technical Check
After submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical completeness check to confirm that the manuscript file, metadata, abstract, keywords, references, figures, tables, and required declarations have been properly submitted. Manuscripts may be returned to authors before editorial screening when required information is missing or when the submission does not meet basic formatting requirements.
- Completeness of submission files and metadata
- Compliance with American English and formatting requirements
- Presence of abstract, keywords, and Evidence for Practice
- Anonymization of the main manuscript file for double-blind review
- Basic reference, figure, table, and declaration checks
3. Editorial Screening
Manuscripts that pass the technical check are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, an assigned editor, or a member of the Editorial Board. The purpose of editorial screening is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.
Editorial screening considers:
- Fit with the journal’s aims and scope
- Originality and scholarly contribution
- Theoretical, empirical, analytical, or policy relevance
- Methodological appropriateness and clarity
- Ethical compliance and publication integrity
- Overall readiness for external peer review
Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage when they are outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, present serious methodological limitations, fail to meet ethical standards, or are not suitable for peer review in their current form.
4. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts selected for peer review are normally assigned to independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area, methodology, theoretical framework, or policy field. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential assessments.
- Reviewers should have appropriate academic or professional expertise.
- Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
- Reviewers must treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential.
- Reviewers should provide evidence-based comments that help editors and authors.
5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
| Originality | Whether the manuscript offers new knowledge, interpretation, evidence, or argument. |
| Theoretical Contribution | Whether the manuscript engages with relevant literature and advances scholarly debate. |
| Methodological Rigor | Whether the research design, data, methods, evidence, and analysis are appropriate and transparent. |
| Policy or Practice Relevance | Whether the study provides meaningful implications for governance, public policy, administration, management, or institutions. |
| Clarity and Organization | Whether the manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and prepared in professional American English. |
6. Editorial Decisions
After reviewer reports are received, the assigned editor evaluates the reviews and makes or recommends an editorial decision. The final decision reflects reviewer comments, editorial judgment, journal standards, and the manuscript’s contribution.
| Accept without Revisions | The manuscript is accepted in its current form, subject to production preparation. |
| Accept with Minor Revisions | The manuscript requires limited revisions before final acceptance. |
| Major Revisions Required | The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be returned to reviewers or editors for further evaluation. |
| Reject | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. |
How reports inform the decision
The editor considers the substance of each report alongside the manuscript and may seek additional advice when expertise or reports are insufficient. Reviewers recommend a course of action; the responsible editor evaluates the evidence and communicates the decision and the comments appropriate for the authors. A reviewer’s recommendation does not by itself determine the outcome.
7. Revision and Resubmission
Authors invited to revise should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Changes should be clearly marked or described. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
- Minor revisions are normally expected within 2 weeks.
- Major revisions are normally expected within 4 weeks.
- Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the Editorial Office.
- Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by editors or sent for additional peer review.
8. Estimated Review Timeline
| Technical Completeness Check | Normally 3–5 business days after submission |
| Initial Editorial Screening | Normally 7–10 business days after technical clearance |
| External Peer Review | Normally 4–8 weeks |
| First Editorial Decision | Approximately 6–10 weeks for manuscripts sent to external peer review |
| Final Decision after Revision | Normally 5–10 business days after revised submission, depending on review needs |
9. Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer comments, editorial discussions, or decisions to unauthorized parties. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
10. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect impartial evaluation. When a conflict exists, the reviewer or editor should decline the assignment or be replaced. Authors are also required to disclose funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest in their manuscripts.
11. Ethical Concerns during Review
The Editorial Office may investigate potential ethical concerns identified during editorial screening or peer review, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, image manipulation, or research ethics violations. Manuscripts may be rejected or subjected to further inquiry when serious ethical concerns arise.
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural irregularity. Appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office with a clear explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editorial representative. 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