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-blind peer review process, ensuring that each article is evaluated objectively and without bias.

1. Review Model

We use a double-blind 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.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts with relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on:

  • Their expertise and publication record;

  • Absence of conflicts of interest;

  • Availability and adherence to deadlines.

3. 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.

Each reviewer provides a recommendation:

  • Accept without changes;

  • Accept with minor revisions;

  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions);

  • Reject.

4. 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.

5. Revision Process

If revisions are required, the authors are given a deadline (typically 7–14 days) to submit the revised manuscript along 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.

6. 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.

7. Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be submitted in writing with a detailed explanation and will be reviewed by the editorial board.