Peer Review Policy

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Civil Service Reform and Practice (IJCSRP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, editorial independence, and publication ethics through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer-review process.

Research Articles, Review Articles, Case Studies, and Discussion Notes normally undergo external peer review. Book Reviews and editorial materials may be assessed editorially without external review.

The Journal operates a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editorial Team and are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, including its originality, methodological quality, relevance to the Journal's scope, contribution to theory and practice, clarity of presentation, and compliance with ethical standards. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, or funding sources.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external review.

During this stage, the Editorial Office evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the aims and scope of the Journal;
  • complies with the Author Guidelines and formatting requirements;
  • satisfies basic standards of scientific quality;
  • complies with publication ethics requirements;
  • has been properly anonymized for double-blind review.

The Editorial Office also performs a plagiarism screening using appropriate similarity-detection software.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Team based on their expertise, publication record, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their reviews within four weeks. If additional time is required, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office promptly.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially or additional specialist expertise is required, the Editor-in-Chief may invite one or more additional reviewers.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal;
  • originality and novelty;
  • significance of the contribution to theory, policy, or practice;
  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • quality and completeness of the literature review;
  • methodological rigor and appropriateness of the research design;
  • quality of data, analysis, and interpretation;
  • validity of the conclusions;
  • practical implications for civil service reform and public administration;
  • organization, clarity of writing, and language quality;
  • adequacy and accuracy of references;
  • compliance with research integrity and publication ethics.

Because IJCSRP is a practitioner-oriented journal, reviewers are encouraged to assess whether manuscripts provide meaningful implications for policymakers, public managers, civil servants, and practitioners.

Editorial Decisions

After consideration of the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;
  • Accept with Minor Revisions;
  • Major Revisions Required;
  • Reject with Invitation to Resubmit as a New Manuscript;
  • Reject.

A favorable recommendation from reviewers does not automatically guarantee publication.

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • accept review invitations only within their area of expertise;
  • disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest;
  • conduct reviews objectively, independently, fairly, and professionally;
  • evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific merit;
  • provide constructive, evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts;
  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe;
  • notify the Editorial Office promptly if they are unable to complete the review.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and support their recommendations with clear scientific reasoning.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related review materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with colleagues or third parties;
  • distribute manuscript files;
  • discuss manuscript content outside the review process;
  • use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage;
  • retain manuscript copies after completion of the review.

These confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review process.

Reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors without the reviewer’s explicit consent, except where disclosure is required by law or necessary for investigating alleged misconduct.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline review invitations where any financial, institutional, professional, personal, intellectual, or other relationship could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

When uncertainty exists, reviewers should consult the Editor-in-Chief before accepting the review.

Editors with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.

Publication Ethics

IJCSRP follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers should immediately notify the Editorial Office if they suspect:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • manipulated images or figures;
  • unethical research practices;
  • inappropriate authorship;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • any other form of research misconduct.

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently. The Editorial Office is responsible for conducting any necessary assessment in accordance with COPE guidance.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

To preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and independence of peer review, reviewers must not upload, disclose, or otherwise share any manuscript, supplementary material, reviewer comments, datasets, tables, figures, or other confidential information with publicly available generative artificial intelligence systems or large language models.

Peer-review reports must represent the reviewer's own independent scientific assessment and professional judgment.

AI tools must not be used to generate, draft, or substantially revise peer-review reports or scientific evaluations.

Software used solely for spelling, grammar, or formatting correction may be used only where confidential manuscript content is not transmitted to external AI systems.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written justification to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals are evaluated independently and may involve consultation with additional reviewers or members of the Editorial Board. The decision following the appeal is final.

Record Retention

The Journal retains peer-review records and editorial documentation for an appropriate period in accordance with applicable legal, ethical, institutional, and data protection requirements.