Peer Review Process

Journal of Social Governance and Public Administration (SOGPA) implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles in the fields of Social Governance, Public Administration, Public Policy, Public Governance and Digital Governance, Leadership, Human Resources and Organizational Development, and Public Management.

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to maintain objectivity, fairness, and academic integrity.

Peer Review Procedure

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform of SOGPA. Submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript template, and publication requirements.

2. Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial evaluation of each submitted manuscript to assess:

  • Suitability with the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Compliance with academic writing standards
  • Completeness of the manuscript structure
  • Compliance with the journal's formatting requirements
  • Similarity and plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

3. Plagiarism Check

All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism or similarity detection software as part of the editorial screening process.

Manuscripts containing substantial similarity, plagiarism, or evidence of unethical publication practices may be rejected in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Under the double-blind peer review system:

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

The double-blind process is intended to support impartial, objective, and fair academic evaluation.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on relevant academic and methodological considerations, including:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and novelty
  • Significance of the research contribution
  • Clarity of research objectives and research questions
  • Adequacy and appropriateness of the theoretical framework
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology
  • Validity and rigor of data analysis
  • Quality and depth of results and discussion
  • Relationship between findings and relevant literature
  • Clarity and validity of conclusions
  • Adequacy and relevance of references
  • Academic writing quality and presentation

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission
    The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision.
  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be considered for publication.
  3. Major Revision
    The manuscript requires substantial revisions. The revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
  4. Resubmit for Review
    The manuscript requires significant revision and must be resubmitted for another review cycle.
  5. Decline Submission
    The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer and editor comments within the specified timeframe.

Authors should provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

The editorial team reserves the right to make the final publication decision based on reviewer recommendations, the quality of the revisions, and other relevant editorial considerations.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

The final decision considers:

  • Reviewer evaluations and recommendations
  • Scientific and academic contribution
  • Originality and quality of the manuscript
  • Methodological rigor
  • Ethical considerations
  • Quality of revisions
  • Compliance with journal standards

The editorial decision is made independently and is not based solely on a single reviewer's recommendation.

Publication Ethics in the Review Process

All editors and reviewers involved in the peer review process are expected to maintain:

  • Confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
  • Objectivity and fairness
  • Professionalism and academic integrity
  • Appropriate handling of conflicts of interest
  • Independence from personal, institutional, commercial, or political interests

Any unethical behavior identified during the review process, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or manipulation of the peer review process, will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

Review Timeline

The average peer review process for SOGPA generally takes approximately 2–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial evaluation.

The stated timeframe is an estimated period and may vary depending on the circumstances of each submission.

Open Access Commitment

Journal of Social Governance and Public Administration (SOGPA) is committed to supporting open scholarly communication and providing immediate open access to published articles to facilitate the dissemination and accessibility of research in the fields of public administration, governance, public policy, public management, and related disciplines.