Reviewer Guidelines

The Good Governance journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, and publication ethics. Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating the originality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Core Practices.

1. Purpose and Scope of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to assist the editorial team in making informed decisions and to help authors improve the quality, accuracy, originality, and presentation of their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, evidence-based, constructive, and professional assessments that support the integrity of scholarly publishing, in accordance with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Good Governance welcomes scholarly contributions concerning public administration, public policy, governance, public service innovation, e-governance, public sector management, bureaucracy, decentralization, sustainable development, economic development, political studies, and community empowerment. Reviewers should assess whether a manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to its stated research field and is relevant to the journal's aims and scope.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must conduct their assessments objectively, impartially, and professionally. Personal opinions about the author, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, political views, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merits of the manuscript must not influence the evaluation. Reviews should focus on the quality of the research and provide clear explanations for the comments and recommendations. These principles are consistent with COPE's guidance on ethical peer review.
Reviewers should accept an assignment only when they possess appropriate subject expertise, can provide a fair assessment, and have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period. If a manuscript falls outside their expertise or they cannot complete the assessment on time, they should promptly inform the editor. Reviewers should not accept assignments merely to delay publication or influence the editorial process. See COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript, review materials, editorial correspondence, or information obtained through the review process to unauthorized persons. They must not discuss unpublished findings with colleagues or other parties without the editor's permission. These requirements follow the confidentiality principles described in COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review for their own research, professional advantage, or personal benefit. Any consultation with another expert must first be authorized by the editor, and the identity and contribution of the additional reviewer must be disclosed to the editor. Further guidance is available in COPE's peer reviewer guidelines.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. Such conflicts may arise from financial relationships, professional competition, personal relationships, close collaboration, institutional affiliations, or other interests connected with the authors or the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers should decline the assignment when a conflict cannot be appropriately managed and should consult the editor if they are uncertain. This requirement is consistent with COPE's guidance on competing interests and its Core Practices.

5. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Review reports must be clear, reasoned, respectful, and supported by scholarly arguments. Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, explain their concerns, and provide practical recommendations for improvement. Personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, insulting language, and unsupported accusations are unacceptable. The review should help the editor reach a fair decision and enable the author to understand how the manuscript can be improved, consistent with the professional standards in COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or contribution of the research and minor issues involving presentation, grammar, terminology, formatting, or referencing. Where possible, each major criticism should identify the relevant section of the manuscript and explain the evidence or reasoning behind the recommendation.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria, taking into account the research design and the conventions of the relevant discipline:
  1. Relevance: The manuscript fits the aims and scope of Good Governance and addresses a meaningful issue in governance, public administration, public policy, or a related field.
  2. Originality and contribution: The manuscript presents an identifiable research contribution, a clear research problem, and an appropriate relationship to existing scholarship.
  3. Literature review: The literature is relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and critically connected to the research questions, theoretical framework, or conceptual argument.
  4. Methodological rigor: The research design, data sources, sampling procedures, instruments, analytical methods, and methodological limitations are adequately explained and appropriate to the research objectives.
  5. Results and analysis: The findings are clearly presented, adequately supported by the evidence, and interpreted in relation to the research questions and relevant literature.
  6. Discussion and implications: The discussion explains the significance of the findings and, where applicable, their implications for governance, public administration, public policy, institutional performance, or public service delivery.
  7. Conclusions: The conclusions are consistent with the findings, address the research objectives, and avoid claims that exceed the available evidence.
  8. References and presentation: Sources are relevant and appropriately cited, the manuscript is logically organized, and tables, figures, and supplementary materials are clear and properly explained.
  9. Research ethics and integrity: Any relevant ethical approval, informed consent, data protection, competing interests, and research integrity concerns are appropriately addressed.
The evaluation of ethical conduct, originality, research integrity, and the appropriate handling of data is consistent with the principles described in COPE's Core Practices, particularly its sections on allegations of misconduct, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, and peer review processes.

7. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should remain alert to potential plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, inappropriate text or image manipulation, suspected data fabrication or falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, questionable authorship practices, and other possible breaches of research or publication ethics. Reviewers should report substantiated concerns confidentially to the editor, providing specific evidence where possible, rather than making unsupported public accusations. The journal should handle such concerns through an appropriate editorial process, in line with COPE's guidance on publication misconduct and COPE's Core Practices.
When assessing research involving human participants, vulnerable populations, personal information, or other ethically sensitive material, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately reports the relevant ethical safeguards, approvals, consent procedures, and data protection measures, where applicable. Concerns should be referred to the editor for appropriate assessment. See COPE's guidance on ethical oversight.
Reviewers should also assess whether references and citations are relevant to the manuscript's arguments. They must not request citations solely to increase their own citation counts, promote a particular journal, or serve an unrelated personal or institutional interest. Any recommendation to add references should be justified by their genuine scholarly relevance. This approach supports the transparency and integrity principles established in COPE's Core Practices.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished research when using digital tools. They should not upload confidential manuscript content, identifiable reviewer materials, or unpublished data to external artificial intelligence systems unless such use is explicitly permitted under the journal's applicable policies and adequate confidentiality and data protection safeguards are in place. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their assessments and must not delegate their independent judgment to an AI system. These precautions reflect the confidentiality requirements of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should follow the journal's applicable disclosure requirements when AI tools are used in preparing a review. The editorial team should establish clear policies governing AI-assisted review and the protection of confidential material, informed by relevant publication ethics guidance, including COPE's discussion document on artificial intelligence in decision-making.

9. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers should submit their reports within the deadline established by the editorial team. If additional time is required, they should notify the editor promptly and provide a realistic completion date. If they are unable to complete the review, they should inform the editor as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed. Timely and properly managed peer review is an important element of the practices described in COPE's guidance on ethical editing and peer review.

10. Review Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a recommendation based on the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of the manuscript. The recommendation should be supported by comments that clearly explain the reasons for the proposed decision.
  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical standards and requires no substantial revisions.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is generally suitable for publication but requires limited corrections or clarifications.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript may be reconsidered after substantial improvements to its argument, literature review, methods, analysis, presentation, or other significant aspects.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, or publication ethics, or its fundamental weaknesses cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.
Reviewers provide expert advice, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor. Decisions should be made through a fair and transparent editorial process, consistent with the principles of COPE's Core Practices.

11. Structure of the Review Report

To support consistent and useful evaluations, reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports as follows:
  1. General assessment: Summarize the manuscript's purpose, principal contribution, relevance, and overall strengths.
  2. Major comments: Explain substantive concerns relating to originality, theory, methods, evidence, analysis, interpretation, and ethical compliance.
  3. Minor comments: Identify specific issues involving clarity, terminology, grammar, organization, references, tables, figures, and formatting.
  4. Confidential comments to the editor: Provide any sensitive information relevant to the editorial decision, including possible ethical concerns or conflicts of interest that should not be communicated directly to the author without editorial consideration.
  5. Recommendation: Select the appropriate decision category and ensure that the recommendation is consistent with the assessment provided.

12. Resubmissions and Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous review comments and whether the revisions have improved the manuscript's quality and reliability. If important concerns remain unresolved, reviewers should explain them clearly and identify any additional changes that are necessary. Reviewers should focus on substantive issues and avoid introducing unrelated new requirements without a clear scholarly justification.

13. Editorial Independence and Final Decisions

Reviewers must respect the independence of the editorial process and must not attempt to influence editorial decisions through personal pressure, external communication with authors, or undisclosed relationships. The editor is responsible for considering the reviewers' assessments alongside the journal's scope, editorial policies, and ethical requirements. The management of peer review and potential conflicts of interest should follow the transparency and accountability principles in COPE's Core Practices.

14. Acknowledgment and Accountability

Good Governance values reviewers' contributions to improving scholarly communication and maintaining publication quality. Reviewers are expected to comply with these guidelines and the journal's applicable editorial policies throughout the review process. The editorial team may consider the quality, timeliness, professionalism, and ethical conduct of reviews when determining future reviewer assignments, consistent with the good editorial management practices described in COPE's guidance for ethical journal editing.