Peer-review process

The journal “Political Science and Security Studies Journal” applies a peer review procedure aimed at ensuring the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.

The external reviewer who receives the manuscript completes the standard review form, hereinafter referred to as the Reviewer Form, and selects one of the available recommendations regarding the further consideration of the article.

Reviewer Recommendations

The reviewer may provide one of the following recommendations:

• the article may be published without revision;
• the article may be published after minor revision;
• the article may be published after substantial revision;
• the article cannot be published; in this case, the reviewer must provide a reasoned explanation for the decision.

Review Timeline and Submission of the Review

The typical period for preparing reviewer recommendations is 3–4 weeks from the date the manuscript is received by the reviewer.

The manuscript with the reviewer’s comments and recommendations, together with the completed Reviewer Form, is sent by e-mail to the Managing Editor.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on the article is made by the Editorial Board, with the participation of the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ reports.

The revised version of the article may be sent for a second round of peer review. If the second review result is negative, the article is rejected and will not be considered further.

The journal does not enter into discussions with the authors of rejected articles regarding the final editorial decision.

Main Reasons for Refusal to Publish

The Editorial Board may refuse publication for the following reasons:

• non-compliance of the submitted materials with the journal’s scope;
• plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism;
• text originality below the minimum threshold established by the journal;
• low scientific quality of the article;
• insufficient relevance or lack of scientific novelty of the study;
• insufficient substantiation of the obtained scientific results;
• incomplete, illogical, or unsupported conclusions;
• violation of the journal’s ethical policy;
• incorrect linguistic, stylistic, or technical formatting of the manuscript.

Note: Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ recommendations, academic quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s aims and scope.