Peer Review

Double-anonymous peer review

Politics Quarterly (PQ) strictly employs a double-blind peer-review policy. This model is utilized to maintain the highest standards of objectivity, fairness, and quality throughout the manuscript evaluation process.

Definition and Mechanism

In the double-anonymous (or double-blind) review model, two critical steps are taken to ensure the anonymity of the process:

Reviewer Anonymity: The reviewers who assess the manuscript are not told the name(s) of the author(s). The authors never learn the identity of the reviewers.
Author Anonymity: The names and identifying details of the authors, including their affiliations, are concealed from the reviewers throughout the assessment phase.

Rationale for Double-Blind Review

PQ mandates this rigorous anonymity for several key reasons:

Limiting Bias: Author anonymity significantly limits potential reviewer bias related to an author's personal attributes, such as gender, country of origin, institutional prestige, academic status, or previous publication history. This ensures that all submissions, regardless of the author's background, are evaluated on an equal playing field.
Focus on Content: By hiding identities, the process compels reviewers to concentrate exclusively on the manuscript's substance, methodology, results, and overall contribution to the field of fine arts, performing arts, and music. Articles from prestigious or renowned authors are considered strictly based on the paper's content, rather than their established reputation.
Integrity of the Record: The unbiased nature of the review supports the integrity of the published record.

Author Responsibilities for Maintaining Anonymity

To ensure the success of the double-blind process, authors bear a fundamental responsibility to prepare their submission files appropriately:

The main file of the manuscript must be submitted without the names of the authors or any identifying information within the text, figures, or supplementary materials.
Identifying details, affiliations, and acknowledgements must be confined only to the separate Title Page file.
Authors must exercise caution when referencing their own previous work; phrases such as "our previous research" should be replaced with neutral language like "previous research has demonstrated".
While absolute anonymity can be difficult to guarantee, as reviewers might occasionally infer identity through self-citation patterns or highly specialized subject matter, the author must take every precaution to prevent inadvertent disclosure.

The double-blind policy is central to PQ's operation and helps uphold the journal's selective publishing standard, which results in an acceptance percentage of 21%.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at PQ is a multi-stage workflow designed to ensure rigor, transparency, and timely editorial decisions, consistent with the procedures set forth by the publisher and COPE (https://publicationethics.org). This process is relied upon to validate academic work and significantly enhance the quality of published research.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Assessment (Primary Review)

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team. This crucial primary review determines the manuscript's fundamental suitability for external expert assessment.

Screening Criteria: Editors check for completeness, correct formatting (following author guidelines), and alignment with the journal's aims and scope.
Ethical Clearance: Manuscripts are screened for originality and compliance with ethical standards. PQ specifically uses Samim-e Noor (https://www.samimnoor.ir) or Hamananjoo (https://tik.irandoc.ac.ir) to verify the work's originality. Please note that while the journal employs this screening mechanism, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the work's originality, avoiding plagiarism, and adhering to all ethical standards rests entirely with the author(s). The journal's screening process does not absolve authors of this fundamental ethical responsibility.
Duration and Outcome: This initial screening stage is rapid, typically taking approximately 10 days. Manuscripts that are clearly not suitable, are poorly written, or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected immediately at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

Stage 2: External Peer Review (Refereeing)

Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to external peer review, which forms the core of the evaluation process.

Reviewer Selection: The editor (or the editorial board) selects appropriate peer reviewers, generally a minimum of two independent experts in the field relevant to the manuscript. Selection is based on expertise, reputation, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Editors are expected to use institutional email addresses for invitation to ensure verification of identity.
Double-Blind Operation: Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and evaluate the work strictly on its intellectual merit. Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or any part of them into a generative AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) for assessment or evaluation, as this compromises author confidentiality and proprietary rights.
Reviewer Roles: Reviewers assess the paper against multiple criteria, including technical competence, originality, clarity, the validity of the methodology and data, and the robustness of the conclusions (as detailed in the Reviewer Guidelines section). Reviewers also remain alert to potential ethical issues and report them to the editor.
Duration: The average refereeing time is 6 weeks. Editors aim to obtain reports within this timeframe. Reviewers who anticipate a delay are asked to notify the editor promptly.

Stage 3: Editorial Decision and Revision Management

The editor (often the Editor-in-Chief) synthesizes the reviewer recommendations and makes the final decision.

Decision Categories: The final outcome is typically one of the following:

◦ Immidiate Acceptance: The manuscript is ready for publication.

◦ Minor Revisions Required: Small adjustments (e.g., formatting, slight word count reduction, minor elaboration on findings) are needed before acceptance.

◦ Major Revisions Required: Significant improvements are necessary (e.g., addressing methodological flaws, collecting more data, or conducting more thorough analysis).

◦ Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in PQ.

Approval and Selectivity: Even after peer review, papers are only published upon the approval of the editorial board. The highly selective nature of the journal is reflected in its 21% acceptance percentage.
Revision Process: If revisions are requested, the author receives the feedback and prepares a revised paper, often needing to provide a detailed response to all reviewer comments in a rebuttal (read more about preparing a rebuttal: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kyfus). In this case, the authors should submit the rebutall when they resubmit their revised manuscript. The editor may send the revised paper back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, or may make the decision internally if the revisions are deemed minor.
Handling Conflicts: If an editor has a competing interest (e.g., the paper was written by themself, a family member, or a colleague), the submission is subject to usual procedures, but the peer review will be handled independently by another editor not involved with the competing interest.

Stage 4: Post-Acceptance and Publication

Once accepted, the article moves to production (copyediting and typesetting). PQ is an open access journal, ensuring all published articles are freely accessible immediately upon publication.

Transparency and Appeals: Authors have the right to submit a formal appeal request to an editorial decision, provided it meets requirements and follows the outlined procedure. Generally, only one appeal per submission is considered, and that decision is final. The publisher will investigate non-editorial complaints or ethics issues following COPE guidelines.