Peer Review

Safeguarding Academic Quality

Reviewers are integral to scholarly publishing, playing a crucial role in validating academic work, enhancing the quality of published research, and fostering connections within research communities. The peer review system, established over 350 years ago, remains the cornerstone of research validation despite ongoing criticisms. It is widely accepted as the most effective method for ensuring the quality and integrity of scientific publications.

At the Journal of International and Prospective Studies, we recognize the importance of peer review in maintaining the standards of academic excellence. Our peer review process is designed to rigorously evaluate submissions, ensuring that only high-quality research contributes to the scholarly discourse. We value the dedication and expertise of our reviewers, whose constructive feedback and thorough assessments uphold the credibility of our journal.

Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the inception of the first scientific journals over three centuries ago. It was formalized by Henry Oldenburg during his editorship (1618- 1677) of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, marking a significant milestone in scholarly publishing. The journal is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process.

Despite periodic challenges to its integrity, peer review remains widely endorsed by the research community as the gold standard for evaluating scientific merit. Surveys conducted by various publishers and scholarly organizations, such as Sense About Science, consistently reaffirm the community's confidence in peer review as the cornerstone of academic validation.

At the Journal of International and Prospective Studies, we uphold the principles of peer review to ensure the quality and validity of the research we publish. We are committed to fostering a robust scholarly environment where rigorous peer review contributes to advancing knowledge and innovation across disciplines.

Key aspects of peer review

  • Evaluation: Peer review serves as an effective tool for assessing research, facilitating the selection of top-quality articles for publication.
  • Quality Assurance: Through the process of review and suggested revisions, peer review enhances the overall quality of the published article, providing the author with valuable insights into their research.
  • Integrity: Peer review supports integrity in research through the rigor of the process itself. If the article is being peer reviewed, it’s being scrutinized in detail, so that readers can trust in the validity and accuracy of the research they're reading.
  • Networking: The peer review system also fosters a sense of community, enabling fruitful interactions and networking within the research community.

Reviewer Guidelines

As a reviewer, your expertise and constructive feedback are invaluable to maintaining the high standards of our journal. Below are the guidelines and expectations for your role as a reviewer.

Upon agreeing to review a manuscript, you will receive an invitation via email with instructions on how to access the manuscript and submit your review. Your evaluation will assist the editor in making an informed decision about whether to publish the article. The review process typically involves the following steps:

  • Invitation to Review: You will receive an invitation to review a manuscript relevant to your area of expertise.
  • Acceptance or Decline: Accept or decline the review invitation based on your expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability.
  • Conducting the Review: Evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed, constructive feedback within the agreed timeline.
  • Submit Review: Submit your review and recommendation through the journal’s online submission system.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

  • Confidentiality: Treat all materials related to the manuscript as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use the manuscript or its content for personal use.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before accepting a review assignment.
  • Objectivity: Provide objective and unbiased feedback. Avoid personal comments and ensure your critique is professional and respectful.

Review Criteria
When reviewing a manuscript, please address the following criteria to ensure a comprehensive evaluation:

  • Relevance and Originality: Assess the significance and originality of the manuscript’s contribution to the field of international relations and prospective analysis.
  • Theoretical Rigor and Coherence: Evaluate the theoretical framework and ensure it is logically sound and well-integrated into the study.
  • Methodology: Examine the research design, data collection methods, and analysis procedures for appropriateness and rigor.
  • Results and Analysis: Review the presentation of results and the validity of the analysis. Ensure that data is accurately interpreted and supported by evidence.
  • Clarity and Style: Assess the clarity of the writing, organization, and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines.
  • Contribution to Existing Literature: Consider how the manuscript advances or challenges current knowledge in the field.
  • Ethical Standards: Ensure that the research adheres to ethical guidelines and standards, including proper citation practices and avoidance of plagiarism.

Review Structure

Your review should include the following sections:

  • Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, including its main objectives, methods, and findings.
  • Major Comments: Detail significant issues that need to be addressed. These may include theoretical, methodological, or analytical concerns.
  • Minor Comments: Note minor errors or areas for improvement, such as grammatical issues, formatting inconsistencies, or clarity of presentation.
  • Recommendation: Offer one of the following recommendations:

                                             Accept without any changes
                                             Accept with minor revisions
                                             Consider after major revisions
                                             Revise and resubmit
                                             Reject

Providing Constructive Feedback

  • Specificity: Be specific in your feedback. Reference page numbers and, if possible, the location on the page.
  • Constructiveness: Offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Focus on how the manuscript can be strengthened.
  • Supportive Comments: Highlight the strengths of the manuscript. Positive feedback is equally important in helping authors improve their work.

Submission of Review

Once you have completed your review, submit it through the journal’s online submission system. Ensure that your review is submitted by the agreed deadline to maintain the efficiency of the review process.

Anonymity and Transparency

  • Anonymous Review: Your review will be anonymized before it is shared with the author(s). Do not include any personal information in your comments.
  • Transparent Feedback: Your feedback will be shared with the author(s) to facilitate a constructive and transparent review process.

Endorsement of EASE Peer Review Quality Assessment Criteria

At the Journal of International and Prospective Studies, we proudly endorse the peer review quality assessment criteria set forth by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). EASE and their guidelines on "How to Assess Peer Review Quality" provide valuable resources and guidelines aimed at promoting high standards in peer review within the scientific community. Their recommendations and guidelines cover various aspects of peer review assessment, including transparency, fairness, timeliness, and constructive feedback, all of which contribute to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scholarly publishing. These principles align closely with our commitment to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and ensuring the quality of research published in our journal.

As signatory of both the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), we are committed to advancing responsible, fair, and inclusive research assessment practices. See our Research Assessment Standards page for further details on how we prioritize a research ecosystem that values transparency, diversity, and collaboration.