Peer review

The International Journal of Justice and Police Sciences (IJJPS) maintains rigorous academic standards through a structured and transparent peer review process.

Type of review

IJJPS uses double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other, and manuscripts are judged solely on scholarly merit and relevance. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope or below its minimum standards may be rejected without review.

The review process

1. Initial screening. The editorial team checks each submission for scope, adherence to the guidelines and ethical compliance.
2. Reviewer selection. The editors assign at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject, avoiding conflicts of interest.
3. Evaluation. Reviewers assess originality and contribution, methodological soundness, quality of writing and ethical compliance, and recommend acceptance, minor or major revision, or rejection.
4. Decision. The editor considers the reviews and decides to accept, request minor revisions, request major revisions (which may involve a further round of review) or reject. Authors receive the decision with the reviewers' comments.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential. Reviewers and editors may not use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Reviewer ethics

Reviewers provide objective, constructive and timely feedback, declare any conflict of interest and decline when one exists, and maintain confidentiality during and after the review.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by sending a detailed explanation to the Editor-in-Chief. An independent editorial board member reviews the appeal, and that decision is final.

Recognising reviewers

IJJPS issues certificates of appreciation to reviewers and may, with their consent, list outstanding reviewers in the journal.

For questions about peer review, contact justicepolicejournal@gmail.com.