Reviewer Guidelines

 

PoliEcoM Administration Review relies on qualified peer reviewers to support the journal’s commitment to academic rigor, editorial independence, methodological quality, ethical publishing, and constructive scholarly communication.

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, evidence-based, confidential, and timely assessments of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Reviews should help editors make informed decisions and help authors improve the quality, clarity, and contribution of their work.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers assist the Editorial Office by evaluating the scholarly quality, originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, policy relevance, and overall suitability of manuscripts for publication in the journal.

  • Assess the manuscript’s contribution to relevant academic debates.
  • Evaluate the soundness of the research design, data, methods, analysis, and interpretation.
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and areas requiring improvement.
  • Provide constructive comments for authors and clear advice for editors.
  • Recommend an editorial decision based on scholarly merit and journal standards.

2. Double-Blind Review

PoliEcoM Administration Review uses a double-blind peer review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and authors are expected to remove identifying information from the main manuscript file. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript.

If a reviewer believes that the author’s identity is known or can reasonably be inferred, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office before proceeding with the review.

3. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have the appropriate expertise, can provide an objective assessment, have no conflict of interest, and can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Accept the Invitation When the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s expertise and no conflict of interest exists.
Decline the Invitation When the reviewer lacks sufficient expertise, has a conflict of interest, or cannot meet the deadline.
Suggest Alternatives Reviewers who decline may suggest qualified alternative reviewers where appropriate.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, quote, circulate, upload, or discuss any part of a manuscript with others without permission from the Editorial Office.

  • Do not disclose the manuscript or review materials to unauthorized parties.
  • Do not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
  • Do not contact the author directly regarding the manuscript.
  • Destroy or delete review materials after completing the review, unless otherwise instructed.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial evaluation. When a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or consult the Editorial Office before proceeding.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration, supervision, employment, or institutional relationship with the author.
  • Personal, financial, professional, ideological, or competitive interest in the manuscript’s outcome.
  • Direct involvement in the research, data, project, or manuscript preparation.
  • Any circumstance that could reasonably affect impartial judgment.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Originality Does the manuscript offer new knowledge, evidence, theory, interpretation, or policy insight?
Relevance to the Journal Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal?
Theoretical Contribution Does the manuscript engage relevant literature and advance scholarly debate?
Methodological Rigor Are the research design, data, methods, analysis, and evidence appropriate and transparent?
Policy or Practice Relevance Does the manuscript provide meaningful implications for policy, governance, public administration, management, or institutions?
Clarity and Organization Is the manuscript clearly written, logically structured, and prepared in professional American English?

7. Review Report Structure

Reviewers should provide a balanced report that identifies both strengths and weaknesses. Comments should be specific, respectful, and actionable. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

A review report should normally include:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript’s purpose and contribution.
  • Major strengths of the manuscript.
  • Major concerns related to theory, literature, methods, analysis, evidence, or interpretation.
  • Specific recommendations for revision.
  • Comments on clarity, structure, references, tables, figures, and presentation.
  • A final editorial recommendation.

8. Editorial Recommendations

Reviewers should conclude their assessment with one of the following formal recommendations. The final editorial decision is made by the Editorial Office and may differ from an individual reviewer’s recommendation.

Accept without Revisions The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Accept with Minor Revisions The manuscript is publishable after limited revisions that do not require major restructuring or reanalysis.
Major Revisions Required The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before it can be reconsidered.
Reject The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of serious theoretical, methodological, ethical, evidentiary, or scope-related concerns.

9. Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should notify the Editorial Office if they identify or suspect any ethical issue during review. Reviewers should not investigate independently beyond the materials provided by the journal.

  • Plagiarism, duplicate submission, or inappropriate text recycling.
  • Fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or unreliable data.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding issues.
  • Inappropriate authorship or contributor disputes.
  • Lack of ethical approval, consent, anonymization, or data protection where required.

10. Constructive Review Standards

Reviews should be professional, respectful, and focused on the manuscript rather than the author. Reviewers should avoid dismissive, discriminatory, hostile, or personal language. Criticism should be supported by clear reasoning and, where appropriate, references to relevant literature or methodological standards.

Helpful reviewer comments are:

  • Specific rather than general.
  • Evidence-based rather than impressionistic.
  • Constructive rather than punitive.
  • Prioritized according to importance.
  • Clear about what must be revised and why.

11. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally asked to complete their review within the timeframe stated in the review invitation. If additional time is needed, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office as early as possible.

Standard Review Period Normally 2–4 weeks from acceptance of the review invitation.
Extension Requests Reviewers should contact the Editorial Office before the deadline if an extension is needed.
Late or Incomplete Reviews The Editorial Office may invite another reviewer when a review cannot be completed in a reasonable time.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must preserve manuscript confidentiality when using any digital, automated, or artificial intelligence tools. Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to external tools or platforms that may store, process, or reuse the content without authorization from the Editorial Office.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and integrity of their review report.

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.