Peer Review Policy

JSP operates a double-anonymous peer-review process for research articles, review articles, policy analyses, and research notes. In double-anonymous review, reviewers do not know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers. The journal uses peer review to assess originality, relevance, rigour, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge.

All submissions first undergo an editorial screening. At this stage, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope, follows submission requirements, is sufficiently anonymised, meets minimum scholarly standards, and contains the required declarations. Manuscripts may be returned for technical correction, declined without external review, or sent to an editor for reviewer selection.

Manuscripts selected for review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript and recommend one of the following decisions: accept; minor revision; major revision; revise and resubmit; or reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor.

JSP expects reviewers to provide fair, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based reports. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and decline review invitations when they cannot provide an impartial assessment. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editor comments carefully and transparently when submitting revised manuscripts.

Editorial workflow

Stage

Description

1. Submission received

OJS submission is checked for file completeness, metadata, declarations, anonymisation, and scope.

2. Initial editorial screening

Editor checks scope fit, originality, basic quality, ethical statements, and possible similarity concerns.

3. Desk decision

Submission may be returned for correction, desk rejected, or sent for peer review.

4. Reviewer invitation

Two or more independent reviewers are invited based on expertise and conflict-of-interest checks.

5. Peer review

Reviewers submit confidential reports and recommendations.

6. Editorial decision

Editor evaluates reports and issues decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, revise/resubmit, or reject.

7. Revision

Authors submit revised manuscript and response to comments. Major revisions may be sent for further review.

8. Acceptance and production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, metadata preparation, and issue publication.

9. Post-publication record

Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are handled according to journal ethics policy.

 

Indicative review timeline

JSP aims to complete initial editorial screening within 2-3 weeks of submission and peer review within 6-10 weeks after reviewers are secured. These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, special issues, holidays, or revision needs. The editorial office will make reasonable efforts to keep authors informed through the OJS system.