Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Perspectives of Law and Public Administration first undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, scholarly quality, originality, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Reviewers assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodology, relevance, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript to the existing literature. On the basis of the reviewers' reports, a manuscript may be accepted, accepted subject to minor revisions, returned for major revisions, or rejected.
Where revisions are required, authors receive the reviewers' comments and recommendations and are invited to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' reports and the authors' responses.
The rights and responsibilities of reviewers are set out in the Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Perspectives of Law and Public Administration.
The evaluation of manuscripts is carried out using the Evaluation Form for articles submitted to Perspectives of Law and Public Administration.