Good Governance is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and rigorous peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The journal's policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, which require journals to describe and manage their peer review processes transparently, and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which outline reviewers' ethical responsibilities.

 

Good Governance uses a double-anonymous peer review model. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities during the review process. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file to support the anonymous review process.

COPE recognizes that journals may adopt different peer review models and emphasizes that the review model and relevant procedures should be clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. See the COPE Core Practices: Peer Review Processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Every manuscript submitted to Good Governance undergoes an initial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor. This screening assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope, follows the author guidelines, meets basic academic and technical requirements, and contains the information necessary for editorial evaluation.

The editor may also assess the manuscript for originality, relevance, methodological adequacy, completeness of references, and potential publication ethics concerns. A manuscript that does not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the author for technical correction or rejected without external peer review. The journal's screening and editorial procedures are intended to support the transparent management of peer review recommended by the COPE Core Practices.

 

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, relevant publications, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Editors should match reviewers' expertise with the subject matter of the manuscript and consider whether potential reviewers can provide an unbiased assessment. Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have the necessary expertise and can assess the manuscript objectively. These principles are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

The journal may invite an additional reviewer when the existing reports are insufficient, substantially contradictory, or do not provide an adequate basis for an editorial decision. Reviewer identities and review reports are handled confidentially in accordance with the journal's review model and applicable policies.

 

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and on the basis of scholarly merit. The assessment may include the following criteria:

a. Relevance to the aims and scope of Good Governance.

b. Originality, novelty, and contribution to the development of knowledge.

c. Clarity of the research problem, objectives, theoretical framework, and research questions.

d. Appropriateness and rigor of the research design, methods, data, and analysis.

e. Accuracy and consistency of the results, discussion, conclusions, and supporting evidence.

f. Adequacy and relevance of the cited literature and references.

g. Clarity of presentation, organization, and academic language.

h. Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication ethics requirements.

COPE advises reviewers to provide clear, objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback, and to avoid personal comments or unsupported criticism. Reviewers should explain the basis of their assessments so that authors and editors can understand the reasoning behind their recommendations. See the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their evaluations within two to four weeks of accepting the review invitation. The actual duration may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the need for additional evaluation. Reviewers should inform the editor promptly if they require an extension or cannot complete the review within the agreed period.

The two-to-four-week period is an operational target set by Good Governance, not a universal deadline prescribed by COPE. COPE emphasizes clear communication and responsible, timely conduct throughout peer review; see the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

After considering the reviewer reports and the manuscript's overall quality, the editor makes the final editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

a. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.

b. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.

c. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision, further explanation, methodological clarification, or additional analysis before it can be reconsidered.

d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, editorial, or ethical requirements, or has weaknesses that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final decision rests with the editor. The editor should consider the substance and quality of the reviewer reports rather than relying solely on a reviewer's recommendation. This approach reflects the responsibilities described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the transparent editorial management principles in the COPE Core Practices.

 

Authors asked to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version and a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The response should explain how each comment has been addressed or provide a reasoned explanation when a suggested change has not been adopted.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly when major revisions have been requested. Alternatively, the editor may evaluate the revisions directly when appropriate. Reviewers should provide constructive comments and communicate promptly with the editor if they cannot undertake a further review. These expectations are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Manuscripts submitted to Good Governance, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other information obtained during peer review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or distribute unpublished manuscript content, use it for personal advantage, or exploit information obtained through the review process.

Reviewers must not involve another person in reviewing a manuscript without prior permission from the editor. If assistance is authorized, the editor should be informed so that the contribution can be appropriately acknowledged or recorded. Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review without the editor's permission. These requirements follow the confidentiality and accountability principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. Competing interests may be personal, financial, professional, institutional, intellectual, or collaborative. Reviewers who believe that a competing interest prevents an objective assessment should inform the editor and decline the invitation when appropriate.

Editors must consider potential competing interests when selecting reviewers and making editorial decisions. Where a conflict is identified, the journal may appoint an alternative reviewer or take other appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the process. The COPE Core Practices call for clear definitions and procedures for handling competing interests involving authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers; see also the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers who suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, unethical research practices, or other publication ethics concerns should inform the editor confidentially and provide supporting information where available. Reviewers should not independently investigate the allegations or make public accusations against authors.

The editor will assess the concern and determine whether clarification, further review, or an appropriate investigation is necessary. The journal will handle such concerns in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant procedures. This approach is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which direct reviewers to raise suspected ethical issues with the editor, and the COPE Core Practices on allegations of misconduct.

 

Good Governance expects all participants to provide accurate professional information and to act honestly throughout the review process. Reviewer identities and contact details may be checked when necessary to confirm that reviewers are genuine and appropriately qualified.

If the editor suspects reviewer impersonation, fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated reviewer recommendations, or other interference with the integrity of peer review, the journal may suspend the process while the concern is assessed. The editor may verify reviewer information independently, seek additional independent reviews, and take further action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures. These safeguards are informed by COPE's guidance, What to do if you suspect peer review manipulation.

 

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual error, a significant misunderstanding, or an inappropriate review process may submit a reasoned appeal to the editor. The appeal should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant explanations or supporting evidence. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

The editor or an appropriate editorial representative will assess the appeal impartially. Where necessary, the journal may seek advice from an independent editor or reviewer who was not involved in the original decision. This procedure reflects the COPE Core Practices, which call for clearly described procedures for handling complaints, appeals, and disputes related to editorial processes.

 

Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, the quality of the evidence, the reviewers' substantive comments, and the journal's stated editorial and ethical criteria. Reviewer recommendations should be considered carefully but should not replace the editor's independent judgment. The journal's editorial procedures are guided by the transparency and sound management principles in the COPE Core Practices.

A manuscript may be accepted only when the editor determines that it meets the journal's academic, editorial, and ethical requirements. Acceptance does not prevent the journal from addressing new and credible ethical concerns that arise before publication or later in the publication process.

 

Good Governance makes its peer review policy available to authors, reviewers, and readers to clarify the responsibilities of each participant and the procedures used to evaluate manuscripts. The journal will review this policy periodically and revise it when necessary to improve transparency, fairness, and the integrity of scholarly publishing.

The publication and periodic review of a clearly described peer review policy reflect the COPE Core Practices: Peer Review Processes, which emphasize transparent descriptions, appropriate review models, reviewer and editor guidance, and procedures for handling competing interests, appeals, and disputes.