Peer Review

Peer Review

Peer Review Policy

At Politics & Security, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality and research integrity. All submissions undergo a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process, ensuring that each article is evaluated objectively and without bias. The process is fully compliant with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial board. At this stage, the article's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, its originality, scholarly significance, and adherence to basic formatting requirements are checked. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without being sent for external review.

2. Review Model

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening enter a double-anonymous peer review process:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

This model ensures impartiality and promotes an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript based solely on its scholarly merit, preventing any potential bias related to the reputation, origin, or other personal characteristics of the author or reviewer. If a reviewer accidentally identifies an author, they are obliged to inform the editorial office and withdraw from the review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts with relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area — recognized national or international scholars with appropriate academic degrees. Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on:

  • Their expertise and publication record;
  • Absence of conflicts of interest;
  • Availability and adherence to deadlines.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field;
  • Theoretical framework and methodological soundness;
  • Clarity of structure and academic language;
  • Relevance of references and proper citation;
  • Validity of data and conclusions.

Reviewers are given 30 days to complete their evaluation and provide detailed, constructive feedback. Each reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without changes;
  • Accept with minor revisions;
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions);
  • Reject.

5. Editorial Decision

The final decision (accept, reject, or request revision) is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be assigned, or the editorial team may make an independent assessment. If a manuscript is rejected by one reviewer, the author has the right to request a re-evaluation by another specialist.

6. Revision Process

If revisions are required, the authors receive the reviewers' anonymized comments and are given a deadline of 21 working days to submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Revised submissions may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation. The final decision on publication is then made by the Editor-in-Chief based on all received reviews and an analysis of the revised version. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the process if it does not meet the journal's standards.

7. Ethical Guidelines

The peer review process strictly follows COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality;
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest;
  • Provide constructive, respectful, and objective feedback;
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns to the editorial board.

8. Appeals & Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. For the full appeals procedure, grounds for appeal, and how to submit a complaint, please see the Appeals & Complaints page.