Reviewer’s Guidelines

All submissions to the Journal of Politics are double-blind peer reviewed. In this process the reviewer’s name is not disclosed to the author and the author’s name is withheld from the reviewer.

The peer review process is as follows:
The editorial board ensures that the article follows the submission guidelines. If an article is deemed by the editorial board to lack new insights or plagiarized it can be rejected. The author will be informed about the reasons for the rejection.

Reviewers are expected to respond in 1 month with a report of 1-2 pages. If the report is not sent within a month, a new reviewer is selected. If the next reviewer is also unable to send a report, members of the editorial board will provide their views on the paper.

If the reviewer suggests revisions, the manuscript will be sent to the author for revision. This revised manuscript once submitted by the author will be reviewed by the editorial board. The author will be informed about the acceptance of the article, if revisions are found to be acceptable.

Guidelines for reviewers:

  • Double Blind peer review is followed by the Journal of Politics
  • Reviewers should send the paper with their comments in 1 (one) month to the editor of the Journal of Politics.
  • In case the reviewer is unable to review the paper, the editor must be notified.
  • In case a report is not received by the editor in 1 (one) month, a new reviewer shall be selected.
  • The reviewer must note whether the paper is worthy of publication. The report by the reviewer must highlight the new insights provided in the paper and suggestions for improving the paper may also be indicated.

Review Process:

(a) Journal of Politics will first write to a potential reviewer with the title and abstract and ask his/her willingness to review the paper.
(b) The paper will be sent to the reviewer on receiving a positive reply.
(c) The reviewer’s comments will be communicated to the author(s) immediately.

Criteria:

Reviewers are requested to keep in mind the following:
(a) Topic: Is the topic new or an old one with further scope for research?
(b) Analysis/Argument: Does the rigour of the arguments and depth of analysis match the expected academic standards?
(c) Methodology: Is the methodology used adequate for the stated purpose of the paper?
(d) Academic interest: Does the subject of the paper of generate academic interest?
(e) Language: Is the content of the paper publication worthy but the language needs
improvement?