All manuscripts submitted to the Iranian Journal of Public Policy are subject to double-blind peer review. Peer review is an essential part of the journal's quality-control process and is intended to safeguard the quality, originality, and integrity of published scholarly research.
The Editor-in-Chief, assisted by the Editorial Board, is responsible for the editorial process and makes the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on the initial editorial assessment and the reports and recommendations of independent reviewers.
The peer-review process is conducted as follows:
The Editor-in-Chief and/or designated members of the Editorial Board conduct an initial assessment of submitted manuscripts.
At this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or are considered unsuitable for the journal may be rejected or returned to the authors before external peer review.
The initial editorial assessment is intended to ensure that manuscripts sent to external reviewers are appropriate for the journal and meet the minimum requirements for peer review.
Each research article is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and suitability for evaluating the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers should not be members of the journal's editorial team for the purpose of satisfying the external peer-review requirement.
The journal takes reasonable measures to avoid conflicts of interest and to maintain the independence and confidentiality of the peer-review process.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board ensure that reviewers have no actual or potential conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted manuscript before the review process proceeds.
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system.
Authors do not receive the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not receive the identity of authors through the peer-review process.
Authors should therefore submit the manuscript and author-identification information in accordance with the journal's submission requirements so that the identities of authors can be appropriately concealed from reviewers.
Reviewers are expected to:
Reviewers should provide clear and professional comments and should avoid personal criticism of authors.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents.
Authors entrust the journal and its reviewers with unpublished research and intellectual work. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must therefore respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related information.
Editors must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts, including their receipt, content, status in the review process, reviewer comments, or final decision, to anyone other than those directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process.
Reviewers must not copy, distribute, discuss, or otherwise disclose manuscripts or their contents to third parties without permission from the editorial office.
Reviewers should delete or return manuscript files after completing their review where applicable.
Confidentiality may be breached when disclosure is necessary for the investigation of suspected fraud, research misconduct, or other serious ethical concerns.
Reviewer comments are provided to the editorial team and, where appropriate, are communicated to the authors.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the peer-review reports and the overall academic assessment of the manuscript.
Reviewers should provide constructive recommendations that may help authors improve their manuscripts, including when the manuscript is not recommended for publication.
When revisions are requested, authors should address the reviewers' and editors' comments and submit a revised version within the specified period.
A revised manuscript may be reassessed by the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and/or the original reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.
Additional rounds of review may be conducted when necessary.
Following acceptance, the manuscript undergoes final editorial and technical processing.
The following steps may include:
The journal's editorial and administrative procedures may include the preparation of publication records, certificates, and reports required by the journal and its publisher.
Research articles are subject to external peer review in accordance with the policy described above.
If the journal publishes article types that do not require external peer review, the applicable review process will be clearly identified in the relevant author guidelines or on the article itself.
