Reviewer Guidelines

 

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Governance and Public Policy relies on a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining academic standards and supporting authors in improving their work.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
  • Evaluate the originality, relevance, and quality of the manuscript
  • Assist editors in making informed publication decisions

2. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents
  • Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished content

3. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Avoid conflicts of interest
  • Decline review if there is any potential bias
  • Report any ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplication, etc.)
  • Follow ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Relevance to Artificial Intelligence in Governance and Public Policy
  • Methodological rigor and technical quality
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Proper citation and referencing

5. Review Process

  • The journal follows a double-blind peer review system
  • Reviewer identities are kept confidential
  • Authors are not aware of reviewer identities

6. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within 2–4 weeks
  • If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should inform the editorial team

7. Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should:

  • Provide clear and actionable suggestions
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Support comments with logical reasoning

8. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts where they have:

  • Personal relationships with authors
  • Financial or professional conflicts
  • Institutional affiliations that may influence judgment

10. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify:

  • Missing citations
  • Relevant prior work not referenced
  • Potential overlap with existing publications

11. Contact Information

For reviewer-related queries: