Peer Review Policies

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Social Dynamics and Governance (JSDG) is a peer-reviewed academic journal committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and academic relevance of all manuscripts published in the journal. JSDG applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The peer review process is designed to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, independently, and solely on their academic merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and contribution to the development of knowledge in the social sciences and governance.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. At this stage, the editors assess whether the manuscript:

  • is relevant to the aims and scope of the Journal of Social Dynamics and Governance;
  • follows the journal's author guidelines and manuscript format;
  • presents a clear research problem, objective, and scholarly contribution;
  • demonstrates sufficient academic and methodological quality to proceed to peer review;
  • complies with research and publication ethics requirements;
  • contains appropriate academic references and supporting evidence; and
  • meets the journal's originality requirements.

All manuscripts are also subjected to a similarity check using appropriate plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts containing substantial similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, or other indications of academic misconduct may be rejected without external review.

The editorial team reserves the right to conduct a desk rejection when a manuscript clearly falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious methodological weaknesses, or fails to comply with the journal's ethical and editorial requirements.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are submitted to a double-blind peer review process. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the subject, theoretical framework, methodological approach, or disciplinary area of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • academic expertise and relevant research experience;
  • publication record in the relevant field;
  • methodological competence where appropriate;
  • independence from the authors and their institutions;
  • absence of personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest; and
  • ability to provide objective and constructive scholarly evaluation.

The editor is responsible for ensuring that reviewers are selected fairly and that potential conflicts of interest are avoided.

3. Scope of Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessment of the manuscript. The evaluation generally considers the following aspects:

  1. Originality and novelty of the research;
  2. Relevance to the aims and scope of JSDG;
  3. Academic contribution to social sciences, governance, public administration, public policy, political studies, sociology, international relations, government studies, communication, sustainable development, or other fields covered by the journal;
  4. Clarity and significance of the research problem and objectives;
  5. Adequacy and relevance of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  6. Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
  7. Quality, reliability, and adequacy of the data and analysis;
  8. Logical consistency between research objectives, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusions;
  9. Engagement with relevant and current scholarly literature;
  10. Clarity, coherence, and readability of the manuscript;
  11. Appropriateness of tables, figures, references, and other supporting materials;
  12. Compliance with relevant principles of research ethics and publication ethics; and
  13. Overall contribution of the manuscript to the advancement of knowledge and scholarly debate.

Reviewers are expected to provide sufficient justification for their recommendations and, where revisions are required, provide clear and constructive suggestions to assist authors in improving the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer review process before, during, and after completion of the review.

Information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer's personal benefit or to disadvantage the authors.

5. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their ability to evaluate a manuscript objectively.

A reviewer should decline an invitation to review when there is a conflict arising from, among other circumstances:

  • recent collaboration with one or more authors;
  • direct institutional relationships;
  • personal or professional relationships that may affect objectivity;
  • financial or commercial interests related to the research;
  • direct competition with the authors; or
  • any other circumstances that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

When a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will appoint another qualified reviewer.

6. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates the recommendations, comments, and overall academic quality of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations serve as an important basis for editorial decision-making, but they do not automatically determine the final decision.

The journal recognizes four principal editorial decisions:

  1. Accept

    The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision, although minor editorial corrections may still be requested.

  2. Minor Revision

    The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter the research design, analysis, or principal conclusions. Authors must address the reviewers' and editor's comments within the specified revision period.

  3. Major Revision

    The manuscript requires substantial improvement in areas such as theoretical development, methodology, data analysis, discussion, organization, or presentation. A major revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers.

  4. Reject

    The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication in JSDG. Rejection may be based on factors including lack of originality, insufficient scholarly contribution, serious methodological weaknesses, inconsistency between evidence and conclusions, ethical concerns, substantial problems with presentation, or incompatibility with the journal's aims and scope.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript; and
  • a detailed response to reviewers, explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a clear academic justification supported by relevant evidence or literature.

The editorial team evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the comments. Depending on the extent of the revision, the manuscript may undergo an additional round of peer review.

There is no predetermined limit to the number of review rounds where additional evaluation is considered necessary to ensure academic quality.

8. Final Decision and Editorial Independence

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or the designated handling editor.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on:

  • academic quality;
  • originality;
  • methodological rigor;
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • reviewer evaluations;
  • research integrity and publication ethics; and
  • the overall contribution of the manuscript to the scholarly literature.

Decisions are made without discrimination based on the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, academic seniority, or other personal characteristics unrelated to academic merit.

The publisher, institutional management, sponsors, or other external parties do not interfere with individual editorial decisions.

9. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

If editors or reviewers identify potential concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or other forms of publication misconduct, the manuscript may be suspended from the normal review process while the issue is investigated.

Where appropriate, the journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, ethical approval information, raw data, or other evidence from the authors.

Editorial actions concerning suspected misconduct will be handled in accordance with recognized principles of scholarly publishing and publication ethics.

10. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • conduct reviews objectively and professionally;
  • provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments;
  • evaluate manuscripts within the agreed timeframe;
  • maintain confidentiality;
  • declare potential conflicts of interest;
  • identify relevant published work that has not been adequately acknowledged;
  • refrain from making personal or discriminatory comments;
  • avoid using confidential manuscript information for personal advantage; and
  • inform the editor when they are unable to provide an impartial or sufficiently competent review.

11. Author Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors must cooperate with the editorial and peer review process by:

  • submitting original and accurate scholarly work;
  • providing requested revisions within the specified timeframe;
  • responding systematically to reviewer comments;
  • disclosing relevant conflicts of interest and funding information;
  • providing ethical approval information where required;
  • avoiding simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another journal; and
  • promptly informing the editor if significant errors are identified during the review or publication process.

12. Purpose of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process at the Journal of Social Dynamics and Governance (JSDG) is intended not merely to determine whether a manuscript should be published, but also to improve the scientific quality, transparency, credibility, and relevance of the research.

Through independent editorial screening, double-blind external review, ethical safeguards, and editorial oversight, JSDG seeks to ensure that published articles provide meaningful contributions to international scholarly discussions in social dynamics, governance, public administration, public policy, political and governmental studies, sociology, international relations, communication, sustainable development, and related social science disciplines.