Peer-Review Process

The peer-review process of the journal, SOCRATES, is designed to ensure rigorous evaluation and advancement of knowledge in the fields of Public Policy, Public Administration, and Philosophy.

This process comprises two essential parts: Internal review and External review.

1. Internal review:

  1. Submission Receipt and Initial Screening: Upon receiving a manuscript submission, the editorial office acknowledges receipt and conducts an initial screening to ensure adherence to the journal's submission guidelines and scope.
  2. Internal Review: After passing the initial screening, the manuscript undergoes an internal review process by members of the Editorial Team. The Editorial Team evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal, assessing factors such as originality, relevance to the fields of Public Policy, Public Administration, and Philosophy, clarity of argument, and adherence to academic standards. This internal review ensures that only manuscripts meeting the journal's quality criteria proceed to the next stage.

2. Double-Blinded External Review:

  1. Upon successful completion of the internal review, the manuscript is anonymized and sent for double-blinded external review.
  2. The journal employs a rigorous double-blinded peer-review process where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
  3. External reviewers are selected based on their expertise and reputation in the relevant fields of Public Policy, Public Administration, and Philosophy.
  4. Reviewers provide constructive feedback on the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, methodological soundness, and contribution to existing knowledge.
  5. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision with major/minor changes, or rejection based on their assessment of the manuscript's quality and scholarly merit.
  6. Reviewers are expected to adhere to strict confidentiality and ethical guidelines during the review process.

3. Decision Making:

  1. The Editorial Team, considering the feedback from internal and external reviewers, decides on the manuscript.
  2. Decision options include acceptance, conditional acceptance pending revisions, or rejection.
  3. Authors receive detailed feedback from reviewers, guiding them in revising their manuscript if necessary.

4. Revision and Resubmission (if applicable):

  1. If the manuscript requires revisions, authors are given a specific timeframe to address the reviewers' comments and concerns.
  2. Revised manuscripts undergo another round of internal and/or external review to ensure that the suggested changes have been appropriately implemented.

5. Final Decision and Publication:

  1. Upon satisfactory completion of revisions, the Editorial Team makes a final decision on acceptance for publication.
  2. Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, formatted, and prepared for publication in the journal's upcoming issue.
  3. Authors are notified of the publication schedule, and their work contributes to advancing knowledge in the fields of Public Policy, Public Administration, and Philosophy.

6. Continuous Improvement:

The journal regularly evaluates and refines its peer-review process to maintain high standards of quality, integrity, and fairness. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members is actively solicited and used to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer-review system.

By adhering to this comprehensive peer-review process, SOCRATES Journal upholds its commitment to advancing scholarly discourse and disseminating high-quality research in Public Policy, Public Administration and Philosophy.

Information on this page was last updated on May 07, 2024, at 07:30 PM.

For inquiries, please contact us at: editor@socratesjournal.com