Peer Review Process

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Governance and Public Policy (JAIGPP) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts.

1. Initial Submission Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation by the editorial office to assess:

  • Scope alignment with the journal
  • Originality and plagiarism (using similarity detection tools)
  • Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting standards

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria are returned to authors for revision or rejected at this stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JAIGPP adopts a double-blind peer review model, where:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant domain.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Novelty and originality of the research
  • Technical quality and methodological rigor
  • Relevance to AI, governance, and public policy
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Validity of results and conclusions

Reviewers provide detailed comments along with one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

4. Decision Making

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor based on:

  • Reviewers’ comments and recommendations
  • Editorial judgment on the manuscript’s contribution

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be assigned.

5. Revision Process

Authors are required to:

  • Submit a revised manuscript
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments

Failure to adequately address reviewer concerns may lead to rejection.

6. Final Acceptance and Proofreading

Once accepted:

  • The manuscript undergoes copyediting and proofreading
  • Authors must approve final proofs before publication

7. Ethical Standards

The journal strictly adheres to publication ethics:

  • No plagiarism or duplicate submission
  • Proper citation and acknowledgment
  • Conflict of interest disclosure
  • Compliance with ethical research standards

8. Timeline

  • Initial screening: 5–7 days
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision: 4–6 weeks (average)

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality and not use unpublished material for personal advantage.