International Review of Public Policy

Referee Guidelines

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles to be published in the IRPP. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor-quality articles. The process not only helps the editor choose whether to accept or reject the paper. It also helps the authors improve the overall quality of their manuscript, even if the decision is to reject it.

How to perform a peer-review

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you will receive a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Please respond to the invitation promptly to prevent delays in the reviewing process. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest. The referees shall have 45 days to evaluate the manuscript and they will receive a deadline for review and notification reminders on D-5 / D+5 to complete the review process.

Here are some guidelines to help you conduct your peer review once you've accepted an invitation to review a manuscript.

IRPP's reviewing policy

IRPP is an inclusive open-access journal, open to different theories, frameworks, and methods of public policy. Our journal reflects the diversity and richness of the field of public policy. We also care about knowledge utilization, hence the findings should be accessible to a wider audience of academic and not academic beneficiaries.

IRPP is committed to its diversity, equity, and inclusion statement.

Guidelines

We wish to offer the following suggestions to those who seek guidance when evaluating a manuscript. Our journal seeks contributions that:

- Report on the ethics procedures and their approval by the relevant university bodies (when ethics review is relevant)

- Declare how artificial intelligence was used and for what purposes

- Make a clear contribution to our knowledge of public policy and policy processes, conceptually or empirically

- Are explicit and transparent on research design, data generation, and how the data were analyzed

Review Comments

We ask you to evaluate the manuscript according to these criteria and provide constructive, clear, and anonymized comments to the author(s). You may wish to add confidential comments to the editor. Your comments should support your recommendation to publish, reject or revise the article. If you request revisions, please make precise, substantive comments and requests. Likewise, if you recommend to reject the article, please provide clear and constructive feedback to the author.

Recommendation

Please assess whether the paper should be accepted for publication, rejected, or revised (major or minor)

Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject